Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Good

About billiards

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
  1. What do you mean when you say the lid has overturned? Would this not require some kind of breakup and plate movement? I.e. would this not count as "plate tectonics"?
  2. Wow. Just wow. You've been asked multiple times by multiple users over the course of this thread to summarise your ideas. This is stooping pretty low as far as excuses go. It's a testament to how COMPLICATED your theory is that you cannot do it. Now what were you saying about Occam's razor?
  3. Arc, you continually avoid all the science questions I throw at you. You spend your time on these light weight digs at me. That's the thing that is very revealing. Rather than tackling the science head on you go for me. What goal posts have I moved exactly? Remember I'm not here to defend the "standard theory". You're here to defend YOUR theory. I think you forget that. Let me know when you are ready to answer some science questions.
  4. Sigh. There is just no point. The layers of ignorance are just too thick. OK, let me elaborate. Fair enough. They were buried in a couple of your posts. You'll just have to forgive me. I can't be expected to trawl through everything you've ever written. Note that this is not the same thing as saying the mantle does not convect! False. We can agree that the mantle does convect, we just can't agree on exactly what the convection looks like. Again. False. Because you're starting from a false premise. Interesting historical aside.
  5. You do need to make a much better effort to present your evidence. How about putting it all together in a nice easy to read table?
  6. When what you SHOULD be doing is establishing that your model is even physically feasible in the first place. Something you have repeatedly avoided. Simple energetic considerations expose your model for being the fraud that it is. What you ARE doing is finding areas where scientific knowledge is lacking and then claiming that your theory can explain all the gaps. You are CLAIMING victory over ground you see as fair game. Take these Doglioni problems you keep coming back to. (Note you have never actually stated yourself what the "Doglioni" problems actually are, only referring reade
  7. Wow, typically evasive response. Turning it back around on me, nice touch. Is not answering *all* criticisms against the rules? If you like I'm sure we could arrange some mod intervention if we started hitting the report button. But that wouldn't be very nice, would it? I doubt the mods want to trawl through this mess of a thread. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you just haven't got around to answering the Qs yet. Again, deflection tactic. What does your theory say about this? Convection in the mantle doesn't exist? So how exactly is heat transferred? Conduction
  8. Hi arc, You still flogging this dead horse? Yes. However.... You must also answer all the criticisms that have been raised in this thread. Waiting a year between posts does not make them go away I'm afraid. Nice find. Of course cherry picking results from the literature that "fit" your model is not how science is done.
  9. +1 Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotroph
  10. Finally think I've got all my code up and running on the new computer!

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. billiards


      I have a paper on subduction zones that will be submitted next week!

    3. imatfaal


      Good luck with the review process! We all say how brilliant it is on these fora - but in reality we all know it is a massive pain in the neck.

    4. billiards
  11. I guess the wavelengths don't fit. The spatial wavelength is far too short. These bulges are of order +/-1 km elevation with 10^3 km lateral wavelength. The temporal wavelength is far too long. Geological evidence shows this topography develops over millions of years.
  12. Press release: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/first-global-map-of-flow-within-the-earths-mantle-finds-the-surface-is-moving-up-and-down-like-a-yo Or go straight to the paper: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2709.html My own perspective: We already knew that the Earth's surface moves up and down, and that one way this can happen is because the mantle pushes the land up from underneath. In this paper a new dataset of observations is presented measuring this type of topography ("dynamic topography"). What's interesting is that the "shape" of the
  13. The funny thing here is that subduction is actually a (really important) mode of mantle convection. It's cold material from the surface that is dense, buoyantly unstable, and sinks into the hotter (more buoyant) fluid below (only fluid over long timescales mind) -- that's pretty much the definition of convection. Subduction = convection Arc denies convection and ridicules it by calling it 'gnomes' yet at the very same time he claims that his model (which kicks the gnomes' collective butt) elegantly explains subduction. So ironically his model "explains" convection. Yet convection is
  14. Your dwarves sound a bit my like my ants. Out of the three theories presented in this thread I'd definitely say my one has got the most legs!
  15. I don't think I'm being overly harsh; it's his idea, not him, that I dismiss. His idea doesn't stand up. I've given a lot of patience to arc if you look through the thread. I took the time to understand his ideas and to challenge them from many angles. This is what the speculations forum is here for. To challenge ideas. However, it's reached a point where it has become clear (to me) that arc is not interested in dialogue. Every challenge arc faces he either ignores or sweeps under the carpet of a wall of (largely duplicated) text. You could boil down all the hard science content from
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.