Archaic Crust Theory of Continents:

[Rift Zone]

"Fractional differentiation" is the modern theory on the origin of Earth's continents.
Plate tectonics is supposedly older than continents. The story goes: subduction zones and volcanism create mountains. The sea floor migrates and piles more stuff on them. Over eons the piles get quite large. *Poof* you have continents.

"All continental crust ultimately derives from the fractional differentiation of oceanic crust over many eons. This process has been and continues today primarily as a result of the volcanism associated with subduction."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_crust

Most scientists believe that there was no continental crust originally on the Earth, but the continental crust ultimately derived from the fractional differentiation of oceanic crust over the eons. This process was primarily a result of volcanism and subduction.
-http://www.universetoday.com/73597/what-is-lithosphere/


I have a different perspective to share with you. The Archaic Crust Theory of continents asserts Earth's continents are what remains of protoEarth's original crust.


The story starts with protoEarth. It was a world much smaller than the one we have now. ProtoEarth had a sister planet that orbited the sun in the same orbit as protoEarth. There's a curious phenomena in orbital physics called Lagrangian points that permits multiple bodies to occupy the same orbit. Theia was the name of the other planetoid. Jupiter's gravitational influence was most likely Theia's demise. Destabilizing its orbit even a little from the Lagrangian point would mean the system would collapse and the two planetoids would eventually collide. If you're familiar with with how the moon formed then you already know some of this story. ProtoEarth and Theia did collide. Fallout from that collision is what our moon formed from.


Both protoEarth and Theia had solid crusts. All of the lightest stuff had already floated to the surface and formed solid crusts of rock that covered their entire spheres. About half of protoEarth's crust was destroyed upon impact. This wasn't a hit and run type of event. Theia didn't hit us and keep going, it mostly joined us. It is now part of the world we know today. (The fact we didn't get blown to bits has got to be one of the most remarkable cosmological coincidences the universe has ever witnessed. The tolerances on that one were so, so small.) As mentioned above, our moon is a collection of some of the fallout from that impact. Some of it was lost to space. Most of protoEarth's and Theia's mass combined to form Earth. The portion of the original crust that survived the impact is what we know as continents. We got an increase of volume when the mass of Theia joined our own. What was closer to half of protoEarth's crust wound up covering more like a third of Earth's larger surface area. There are consequences to that: If you take half an egg shell and force it to adhere to the volume of an orange, you're gonna create a few fractures. I'm guessing an original one is what separates North America from Siberia. Lake Baikal and the fault line that runs beneath the Mississippi River are also consequences of forcing bent rock into a reduced arc. A comet helped break India from Antartica.

Earth forms crust still! Earth has its own crust! As mentioned above, all the lightest stuff had already floated to the surface so the crust formed today is much more dense than the original crust. We call it sea floor and our continents float on it. Kindly a look at a sea floor map of the Indian Ocean... India left clear tracks as it migrated north, away from Antarctica. Those, the Chagos-Laccadive Plateau and the Ninetyeast Ridge, my good sir/miss, are tracks! That is unprecedented! That's what makes our continents, our world so rare: having 2 distinct types of crust. Our continents, as we have them on Earth, are unique to all known planets and moons. There is nothing out there that remotely resembles the surface structure of this planet.



Fractional Differentiation, the existing theory, makes specific assertions/implications/predictions about our planet. Let's see how these compare to Archaic Crust Theory and observation:

Where did plate tectonics come from? Modern theory states tectonics arose long after the moon collision, after the entirety of the crust was destroyed. So there's new crust. -Brand new, cohesive unfractured crust. Cool. How did it get broken? What set off all this activity? The formation of plates and source of initial fracturing is very clear in Archaic Crust Theory.

What subduction? Crust is formed at nearly uniform density. Crust at uniform density does not subduct. No subduction also means no migration. Even if an event happened to fracture the crust, individual plates would not move very far relative to another. Imagine the world's land mass was more like 95% and our oceans were more like channels, continents would move, but not far. There would be no wide sweeping action relative to another as they imply. Hence, they have no collection technique -no way to form continents. They action they say exists simply doesn't. Between planets and moons we have hundreds of celestial bodies in this solar system alone. Ours is the only one that demonstrates subduction.

Fractional differentiation claims all this stuff (our continental land masses) got swept up off the ocean crust. What stuff? Where did all THIS stuff come from? This isn't material from ocean floor crust. This stuff, the material in our continents came from somewhere else. Crusts form at uniform densities because they are composed with more or less uniform materials. If prevailing theory were correct, continent chemical composition would look a lot more like ocean floor composition. Rather, they are very distinct. Again, crusts form at uniform densities because they are made of more or less uniform materials. The "differentiation" that is imagined in the current theory is not only wrong, it's contrary to physics principals. Plus, the whole "it all just got swept over to one side" mentality is shaky to begin with. We don't see sea floor getting swept up and adding to continental crust anywhere on this planet. Only the continental crust rises and falls. If anything it's the reverse of their views: continental crust is adding to oceanic crust.

The moon formation simulations that show earth's crust being completely destroyed by the collision is contrary to physics as well. The footage looks great but the reality of the situation is a little different. The far side of the world got an earthquake and meteor shower. I'd like to see anyone try to defend the sensationalism found in the videos.

"Fractional differentiation" doesn't happen. The whole theory is, in fact, contrary to the laws of physics. Planets do not form with two distinct types of crust, one floating on another. It takes some unusual circumstances to bring that type of arrangement out. They say our moon is too big too! I bet the odds of forming such a large moon are exactly the same as getting floating crust.

Welcome to a crash course in Archaic Crust Theory! Don't bother running a search for it because no work has been published. Actually, I'm the originator of this theory and I have more important things to attend to. No telling when you might see something like this coming from "science".

 

[sprinkles]

Interesting.

What probably happened with Theia is that it wobbled back and forth for about 30 million years or so just ahead of protoEarth, it would cycle by getting pulled in closer and then being corrected back to its original Lagrangian point. However each time it cycled it came a bit closer to protoEarth because it was gaining more mass over time, and with each wobble it was trying to reach a higher orbit, so by the time it hit protoEarth it had hit at about a 45 degree angle because it was already in a slightly higher orbit which could be what allowed the planet to survive and create the moon.

 

[Rift Zone]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION],

Very interesting! Your comments gave me a bit to think about. Thanks for that!

Getting a good grasp of the conditions of the orbits and eventual collision is not an easy thing to do. We basically have a mystery on our hands with only one planet and the laws of physics to guide us.

I'm under the impression Theia followed us, at the roughly 60 degree Lagrangian Point. Theia could have had an opposing orbit, and ya, the physics is completely sound for Theia forming ahead of us as well. Still, my understanding of stellar formation and what becomes of outlying material leaves me under the mostly unsubstantiated impression [intuition?] that Theia formed behind us.

I have no concept of the time frames involved here. I would set the conditions and rely on simulations to gain some perspective on that. We do know the planetoids had plenty of time to fully form and cool enough to form crusts. You are right about it getting pulled back and forth! Getting closer to Jupiter would speed it up and departing would slow it down.

Higher orbit... Hmm. That's intriguing! Honestly, I don't know enough about how the two planets hit another to make a guess if Theia had a higher orbit or one of slightly lesser radius. We do know it wasn't a head on collision. We can certainly rule out perfectly matched orbit. Another consideration is having orbits with exact radii but the two could have been on slightly different orbital planes. -a passerby of some sort could have made such an adjustment in orbit. Fortunate for us, the moon's orbital eccentricity, angular momentum values, Earth's tilt, and other known factors can help us narrow the field of possibilities. We can say with confidence that the orbital plane was off ever so slightly, but most of the adjustment away from a direct hit was a matter of higher/lower orbital radius.

So which one? Was Theia on the inside track or was it outside? Um, I have no clue. I don't think gaining mass changes the orbit dynamics. The orbit would remain the same no matter how big the rock was. How it gained the mass does matter. If it got hit mostly on the leading edge one would suspect the planet to slow down and shrink its orbit a bit. On the other hand, protoEarth could have swept a path clear and most of the impacts could have come from behind, speeding it up a bit. That would have placed it in a higher orbit. We will eventually know! Because both planets were spinning, hitting on one side or the other makes a huge difference. We will eventually backtrack the angular momentum values and get a good feel for that one.

 

[Rift Zone]

Here's something to consider! A little consequence of Archaic Crust Theory. (Talk about unsubstiated! Lol) I have the utmost confidence in Archaic Crust Theory... I do believe it's an accurate description of origin of continents. I'm under the impression it's irrefutable and will only be a matter of time before mainstream science makes the same claims. I have confidence in this one too, but it may never be demonstrated. So then, I do not assert this as theory. I have no intention of ever asserting this as theory. We can chat about the nuances of my opinion about this if you like, but please keep in mind this is not a facet of Archaic Crust Theory. This is small talk from a forum member.

I wonder about the origin of life. The basic building blocks of life readily form when conditions are right. I mean we have amino acids, and I think even a few proteins, floating around in inner stellar space because the are so easy to make. Getting those building blocks to transition into self-replicating molecules seems to be the real challenging part. We do not observe a profusion of life in the universe so we can assume chemistry doesn't exactly lead to life under normal circumstances. It follows we should look into unusual circumstances.

I believe in a concept I call "exotic molecules". Every environment places limitations on chemistry. Different environments place different restrictions. The surface of worlds naturally have their own characteristics. Again, because we do not observe a profusion of life in the universe, we can safely assume the chemistry limitations on the surface of worlds is not conducive to leading to life. I strongly suspect the chemistry that led self replicating molecules came from a source not commonly witnessed on most worlds. Thus the concept of "exotic molecules". Exotic molecules are simply chemical structures that would not form under normal planetary conditions. By definition, they could only form under rather uncommon circumstances.

Theia and protoEarth had atmospheres. There is no question out gassing contributed to substantial atmospheres, it is a natural consequence of how planets form. Theia was smaller than protoEarth but it was still about the size of Mars, it was no joke and certainly big enough to maintain atmosphere. Crunching worlds together is an unusual circumstance. What we're talking about here is having crust, mantle and atmosphere interact in unprecedented ways. Shear off half a planet and pour some atmosphere on it WILL produce chemistry not commonly found on the surface of worlds. I have no doubt the exotic molecules I refer to existed. I have no doubt they fell upon the remaining crust and were preserved, well some, the ones that rained back down to lava fields were toast. Who knows, the first replicating molecule could have risen within minutes of the collision... It could have taken millions of years to incubate the exotic ones. Don't know. But I do know when I look at the moon I think of it as life's sister, we were born of the same event. Probably should have put this in my blog... Sadly this is the type of BS that occupies my being.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=10289]Rift Zone[/MENTION]

Well gaining mass does effect orbit dynamics since it causes the interactions with other bodies to become more significant - i.e. as it gained more mass over millions of years probably due to other collisions going on nearby in a young solar system, it became more effected by perturbations, so each time it got knocked out of place it would get knocked out more than the last time.

Edit: or rather I should say pulled out of place. For example if the moon gained significant mass, it would create a stronger gravity well, which would likely effect its orbit and Earth's orbit, change the tides, and maybe even have a collision.

Or in Newtonian mechanics, F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared

 

[Rift Zone]

@Rift Zone

Well gaining mass does effect orbit dynamics since it causes the interactions with other bodies to become more significant - i.e. as it gained more mass over millions of years probably due to other collisions going on nearby in a young solar system, it became more effected by perturbations, so each time it got knocked out of place it would get knocked out more than the last time.

Edit: or rather I should say pulled out of place. For example if the moon gained significant mass, it would create a stronger gravity well, which would likely effect its orbit and Earth's orbit, change the tides, and maybe even have a collision.

Or in Newtonian mechanics, F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared

Yes! You are absolutely right. I was thinking of a different dynamic: for any given radius of orbit, that orbit is stable no matter the mass of the object. The only thing it would really change is the barycenter.

Planetary interactions are another matter entirely. Changes in mass there do profoundly alter the system. And yes, small disturbances will add up to larger ones.

 

[sprinkles]

Yes! You are absolutely right. I was thinking of a different dynamic: for any given radius of orbit, that orbit is stable no matter the mass of the object. The only thing it would really change is the barycenter.

Planetary interactions are another matter entirely. Changes in mass there do profoundly alter the system. And yes, small disturbances will add up to larger ones.

Yeah that's true. So for example in my moon scenario, it wouldn't necessarily crash into the earth, it might just cause the barycenter to move - maybe even cause earth to revolve around a point outside itself, but that's just the earth and moon in isolation.

 

[Rift Zone]

Yeah that's true. So for example in my moon scenario, it wouldn't necessarily crash into the earth, it might just cause the barycenter to move - maybe even cause earth to revolve around a point outside itself, but that's just the earth and moon in isolation.

Exactly.

Incidentally, I believe Jupiter is massive enough to place the barycenter of it and the sun in the sun's corona.

 

[say what]

This is so far above my understanding and knowledge...but it's extremely interesting.

Have you presented to anyone - within the scientific community?

How does it compare/contrast to the other theories out there? Why don't you think it's been picked up by mainstream science?

 

[sprinkles]

This is so far above my understanding and knowledge...but it's extremely interesting.

Have you presented to anyone - within the scientific community?

How does it compare/contrast to the other theories out there? Why don't you think it's been picked up by mainstream science?

There's a couple theories like this and they're worth consideration based on the materials we find on the planet. There's another theory for example that earth at one point had two moons, and one of them gently collided with the back of earth's current moon which could be why the moon's crust is thicker on the back side.

 

[Rift Zone]

This is so far above my understanding and knowledge...but it's extremely interesting.

Have you presented to anyone - within the scientific community?

How does it compare/contrast to the other theories out there? Why don't you think it's been picked up by mainstream science?

I've sent it out to a couple of universities. They don't seem interested in talking about it.

Fractional differentiation theory is the only one it directly competes with. Though there are older theories of moon formation that no one takes seriously anymore... Like the moon "jumped" out of the pacific like an Alien's movie baby.

How does it compare? Archaic Crust Theory provides a clearer and more comprehensive model than fractional differentiation. Plus it's premises are actually reflected within the laws of physics. That is to say it has the capacity to explain why Earth has two distinct types of crust even though it is not a natural part of any planet's formation. It also makes testable predictions! We all have an understanding that the continents "fit" together. This theory says they would fit even better if you dropped the volume of the globe the continents were plotted on. It also explains Lake Baikal and other features such as fault lines where no plate boundaries exist. In short, Archaic Crust Theory actually explains continents. The existing theory is babble that has no representation in physics. It is incapable of defending its premise and makes no predictions or descriptions. The quality of the theory alone pales in comparison of the one presented here, to say nothing of its accuracy.

The universities not talking to me is giving me the impression they're not interested. Academia is a clique, being on the outside could play a role. I wonder about this too:

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. -Genesis 1:9 "Fractional Differentiation" is the religious account of continent formation. That bible quote above is fractional differentiation theory. The Bible forgot to mention volcanism and subduction. Modern theory is no more sophisticated or descriptive than that line of verse. It is entirely possible some would favor the old theory even if they had reason to believe a more accurate description exists.

 

[katesisco]

Interesting. Earth's crust is extremely thin compared to the other planets so how do you explain its thinness? Especially if we are the product of joining? The expulsion via gas blow-out of the Moon material works for the thin crust. There are several places on the Earth, Alaska for one, that have ocean crust smack on the land surface. If our sun produced its planetary system how do you explain the fact that there are two systems? One of gas giants perhaps produced when our Beetle Sun formed, and the inner rocky planets from the collapse of the Beetle Sun into a magnatar we call Sol. Miles Mathis has some interesting papers on the net. Looking at our oceans, there is a dead zone of no oxygen about 2 miles down. The Bahama platform is 2 miles of limestone --produced by living creatures--which one assumes was produces at the rate of water rising. Where did we get 2 miles of water? 2014 science confirms that the deep rocks--majorite contains large amounts of water--ringswoodsite now is confirming this large water deep in the Earth. So, is our core producing water? Or did we originally have magnetically levitated water? It takes 10 Tesla to levitate water. Did we have this magnetic wrap that has slowly been fading? Exactly what one would expect from a magnetar. See R Duncan U of Texas astrophysicist. Venus has a cloud deck astonishingly Earth-like 30 miles above the surface. What will happen when the magnetic strength of our fading magnetar falls inward past Venus? Earth will become Mars and Venus will become Earth with surface water.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I am always looking for people to bounce ideas off. You know the folks who have actual jobs in theoretical physics etc. Unfortunately while I have the imagination, I dont have the math to back it up.

I think what you need to do if you want to get someone to listen is put this in the hands of someone who already has those channels in place. It would by a rarity for someone to pick a random letter or email out of a stack and instantly know what to do with it etc...

 

[sprinkles]

Interesting. Earth's crust is extremely thin compared to the other planets so how do you explain its thinness? Especially if we are the product of joining? The expulsion via gas blow-out of the Moon material works for the thin crust. There are several places on the Earth, Alaska for one, that have ocean crust smack on the land surface. If our sun produced its planetary system how do you explain the fact that there are two systems? One of gas giants perhaps produced when our Beetle Sun formed, and the inner rocky planets from the collapse of the Beetle Sun into a magnatar we call Sol. Miles Mathis has some interesting papers on the net. Looking at our oceans, there is a dead zone of no oxygen about 2 miles down. The Bahama platform is 2 miles of limestone --produced by living creatures--which one assumes was produces at the rate of water rising. Where did we get 2 miles of water? 2014 science confirms that the deep rocks--majorite contains large amounts of water--ringswoodsite now is confirming this large water deep in the Earth. So, is our core producing water? Or did we originally have magnetically levitated water? It takes 10 Tesla to levitate water. Did we have this magnetic wrap that has slowly been fading? Exactly what one would expect from a magnetar. See R Duncan U of Texas astrophysicist. Venus has a cloud deck astonishingly Earth-like 30 miles above the surface. What will happen when the magnetic strength of our fading magnetar falls inward past Venus? Earth will become Mars and Venus will become Earth with surface water.

The sun isn't a magnetar. It is a main sequence star. Magnetars are a type of neutron star which are post main sequence.

Magnetars are very tiny - up to 800 times smaller than the earth. A magnetar is smaller than some earth cities! Yet it is more massive than our sun.

Our sun is not, and hasn't been, a magnetar.

Edit: not to mention that if a magnetar were even remotely close to earth, the magnetic field would wipe out every magnetic device on the planet.

 

[Rift Zone]

Interesting. Earth's crust is extremely thin compared to the other planets so how do you explain its thinness? Especially if we are the product of joining? The expulsion via gas blow-out of the Moon material works for the thin crust. There are several places on the Earth, Alaska for one, that have ocean crust smack on the land surface. If our sun produced its planetary system how do you explain the fact that there are two systems? One of gas giants perhaps produced when our Beetle Sun formed, and the inner rocky planets from the collapse of the Beetle Sun into a magnatar we call Sol. Miles Mathis has some interesting papers on the net. Looking at our oceans, there is a dead zone of no oxygen about 2 miles down. The Bahama platform is 2 miles of limestone --produced by living creatures--which one assumes was produces at the rate of water rising. Where did we get 2 miles of water? 2014 science confirms that the deep rocks--majorite contains large amounts of water--ringswoodsite now is confirming this large water deep in the Earth. So, is our core producing water? Or did we originally have magnetically levitated water? It takes 10 Tesla to levitate water. Did we have this magnetic wrap that has slowly been fading? Exactly what one would expect from a magnetar. See R Duncan U of Texas astrophysicist. Venus has a cloud deck astonishingly Earth-like 30 miles above the surface. What will happen when the magnetic strength of our fading magnetar falls inward past Venus? Earth will become Mars and Venus will become Earth with surface water.

radioactivity in earths mantle will keep this planet geologically active long after the sun burns out. -if it survives, anyway. Essentially, the crust is kept thin because the under layers never cool. Some of that is hard for me to follow. Could you clarify the questions I skipped? Plate tectonics moves continental crust up and down naturally over time. I've personally found seashells on top of mountains due to uplift. There's no water in earths core. Some water makes it below continental crust as ocean crust subducts. The interaction of water and lava often makes volcanoes like Mt Shasta and Mt St Helens. A magnetar is a neutron star with an exceptionally strong magnetic field. I have no idea how it works. It is the only celestial object I can't explain. I don't think the Venus analogy directly applies.

I am always looking for people to bounce ideas off. You know the folks who have actual jobs in theoretical physics etc. Unfortunately while I have the imagination, I dont have the math to back it up.

I think what you need to do if you want to get someone to listen is put this in the hands of someone who already has those channels in place. It would by a rarity for someone to pick a random letter or email out of a stack and instantly know what to do with it etc...

My understanding of the universe doesn't exist in language. I didn't throw all this together by picking up arguments and working toward these conclusions. I just see it. All of it. I knew what continents were as soon as I learned about the modern theory on moon formation. It took me a decade to realize I was the only one who made that connection. I guess I have physics embedded in me or something. Any computer generated physics better get their arcs and motion perfect or it sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Most movies fuck that up. I can outhike most people not because I'm that much better of an athlete, but because my body mechanics are so much more efficient, I can see efficiency in motion. I can read moving water like a cat in the hat book. I'm really good at math... My skills are only up to precalc so that bites... But still, I have always been the top student in math classes. Producing accurate answers was never an issue for me. I've been hired by my college to tutor math. My tutees love me! I "get" math, inside and out... It doesn't take me long to figure out what concepts they are missing. Then I'll throw it at them every which way till they pick it up. Jumping up 2 grade points is the average my tutees have achieved. I'm a padawan math pup. Hehe. Maybe the force runs strong in this one. Maybe not. All I know is a lot of my views are opposed to what modern science teaches and I'm hunting for the holy grail of science. I'll be able to get a lot more of my thoughts down on paper as I pick up calculus. Given the scope of reconciling relativity with quantum mechanics, I'll necessarily exist on the fringe of science until I have something proven -to many pet theories and cliques to deal with. Archaic crust theory isn't gonna do it as far as breaking into academia goes. It's cool, I know a fair amount as it is, seeing the math is just going to put more things together for me. I'll contribute more to science as time passes.

 

[Eventhorizon]

radioactivity in earths mantle will keep this planet geologically active long after the sun burns out. -if it survives, anyway. Essentially, the crust is kept thin because the under layers never cool. Some of that is hard for me to follow. Could you clarify the questions I skipped? Plate tectonics moves continental crust up and down naturally over time. I've personally found seashells on top of mountains due to uplift. There's no water in earths core. Some water makes it below continental crust as ocean crust subducts. The interaction of water and lava often makes volcanoes like Mt Shasta and Mt St Helens. A magnetar is a neutron star with an exceptionally strong magnetic field. I have no idea how it works. It is the only celestial object I can't explain. I don't think the Venus analogy directly applies.


My understanding of the universe doesn't exist in language. I didn't throw all this together by picking up arguments and working toward these conclusions. I just see it. All of it. I knew what continents were as soon as I learned about the modern theory on moon formation. It took me a decade to realize I was the only one who made that connection. I guess I have physics embedded in me or something. Any computer generated physics better get their arcs and motion perfect or it sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Most movies fuck that up. I can outhike most people not because I'm that much better of an athlete, but because my body mechanics are so much more efficient, I can see efficiency in motion. I can read moving water like a cat in the hat book. I'm really good at math... My skills are only up to precalc so that bites... But still, I have always been the top student in math classes. Producing accurate answers was never an issue for me. I've been hired by my college to tutor math. My tutees love me! I "get" math, inside and out... It doesn't take me long to figure out what concepts they are missing. Then I'll throw it at them every which way till they pick it up. Jumping up 2 grade points is the average my tutees have achieved. I'm a padawan math pup. Hehe. Maybe the force runs strong in this one. Maybe not. All I know is a lot of my views are opposed to what modern science teaches and I'm hunting for the holy grail of science. I'll be able to get a lot more of my thoughts down on paper as I pick up calculus. Given the scope of reconciling relativity with quantum mechanics, I'll necessarily exist on the fringe of science until I have something proven -to many pet theories and cliques to deal with. Archaic crust theory isn't gonna do it as far as breaking into academia goes. It's cool, I know a fair amount as it is, seeing the math is just going to put more things together for me. I'll contribute more to science as time passes.

Ok nothing wrong with that. But if you want people fo consider your ideas, you have to communicate. Whether you see everything or not is meaningless unless you can communicate with people in a way they can understand.

 

[Rift Zone]

Ok nothing wrong with that. But if you want people fo consider your ideas, you have to communicate. Whether you see everything or not is meaningless unless you can communicate with people in a way they can understand.

Very true. I'm not too bad with translating what I see into comprehensible language. Some things just won't translate into English, though. Getting more advanced math skills would increase my vocabulary in a big way.

 

[SealHammer]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] [MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION]

I found Rift Zone posting this lovely theory on another forum. But they didn't like it
And another!
Another still!

Seems he fancies himself a romantic nomad of the sciences, scouring the expanse of the web for the most scholarly of discussions. Well, at least until somebody doesn't play into his delusions of grandeur, whereupon he immediately declares his intellectual supremacy and becomes a mix of obstinate, cold, and outright hostile. Almost like an instance of narcissistic rage. I guess this is why he doesn't like actual scientists.

I thought the TSF thread was pretty interesting, especially how he immediately regressed into typical crank behavior when the moderator requested he support his theories with substantive evidence.

 

[Rift Zone]

@sprinkles @Eventhorizon

I found Rift Zone posting this lovely theory on another forum. But they didn't like it
And another!
Another still!

Seems he fancies himself a romantic nomad of the sciences, scouring the expanse of the web for the most scholarly of discussions. Well, at least until somebody doesn't play into his delusions of grandeur, whereupon he immediately declares his intellectual supremacy and becomes a mix of obstinate, cold, and outright hostile. Almost like an instance of narcissistic rage. I guess this is why he doesn't like actual scientists.

I thought the TSF thread was pretty interesting, especially how he immediately regressed into typical crank behavior when the moderator requested he support his theories with substantive evidence.

The difference between scientists and whiners is scientists actually utilize data to back up their claims. For instance: modern theory on continent formation is contrary to the laws of physics.

Testable predictions of Archaic Crust Theory include... We're all familiar with the concept of the continents fitting together. This theory says the continents would fit much better if you reduced the size of the globe the continents were plotted on.

Im not a scientist by trade but I am one at heart. Sharing our findings with the world is an inherent compulsion. Typical crank behavior involves a lot of unsubstantiated bitching and moaning, just like your post! You were warned not to fuck with me.