How mountain ranges were created...(for serious scientist only please) (cold, look)

[Time and Space]

What do you see there? Waves right? Ripples....and where do you normally see ripples or waves?
answer: In the ocean or at a lake. You observe ripples or waves in things that are fluid...


(Observe how the ripples in the water resemble mountain ranges?
In order for mountain ranges to form, they too would of had to be in a liquified state)

Now pay attention cause what I'm about to say next will blow your mind...but also what i'm about to say is very obvious, always has been, but do to a conditioned way to look at science theory laid before you by others...your own logic has been supressed...until now...

1.The idea that it takes millions of years for mountains to form is erronious...
a. What does your own observations tell you in nature? In order for ripples to occur, the mass or matter has to be in a liquid or semi-liquid or mushy state...physics is physics is physics...and the same physics that applies to jello, also applies to rocks and mountains...

2. More than likely these great mountain ranges were formed in a matter of days, weeks or months...
a. While Pangea (the super continant) was splitting apart, seperating and drifting...so much heat was generated by the friction that the rocks basically became 'liquified' or 'puddyfied'...as such, when shelves collided...while in this puddyfied soft state due to tremendious heat and friction...great mountain ranges or rifts were created...
And as the violent activity subsided...the rocks cooled and hardened where they were....

Kinda like if you suddenlty froze an wave on the beach coming out you. You froze the wave, or water, while in liquid form...thus you have a mountain ridge or maintain ranges...they formed while in a semi liquid state....and hardend when the sudden and violent shifting ended....


Why am I right?
1. Cause if you tried to shift rocks that are as hard as they are in their current state, they would simply 'shatter' 'crumble'...to brittle. like when they blast rocks for construction highways...it shatters while in a frozen state.
Basic physics should tell you that...

The rocks or mantle would of had to be in a semi-liquid state to merge like that without simple crumbling...and the force that created or merged them would have had to be sudden and violent in order to generate enough friction to soften the rocks...

The friction required to build up that type of heat is not built up over millions of years while continital shelves merge a few inches a decade....throw that theory right out the window...it's hogwash...

And use this new truth here, as a basis for your nobel prize...I know I won't be given credit for any of it...so if your in college or something and want to change the scientific world...go ahead and build upon my idea, which is rooted in common since and physics.

(or if any Dean at a college has a full science scholarship, I'd gladly accept) I mean how many more ideas could I be on the verge of...?)

[scarmig]

This is a joke, post right?

I'm not taking the bait.

[Time and Space]

I said serious scientist...a serious scientist would read what I wrote, and having a basic understanding of physics, would or could totally see the genious behind my report....

But if your not a scientist...you won't understand any of it...

I take that back...I've explained it in such simple terms that even a non scientist could see my point....there's no way one could read my report and come away not learning anything...unless of course...one is a millione or billione year type of theorist....

It's impossible for rocks to build up and heat over billions of years...if it took that long...then the rate or erosion and build up would cancel each other out...

Please read what I write...and consider my logic ...ok...just read and consider...

I know most are conditioned to believe such logic can only come from Harvard or Yale...and or not use to it coming from an ordinary citizen who thinks...

[scarmig]

Just how old do you think the Earth is?

[Time and Space]

Originally Posted by scarmig

Just how old do you think the Earth is?

I love questions, and I have an answer...please subscribe to this thread so that you can read my answer when I return from an errand (have to return a movie rental)...

But I have an answer for you, and it's as astonishing as my mountain range theory...as soon as I return I will give it to you....

[Time and Space]

Originally Posted by scarmig

Just how old do you think the Earth is?

That's a 3 part question...

1.How long do I think the current life sustaining planet we know today has existed.

2. How long do I think the planet has been formed and shaped where it currently sits in the Solor system?

3. How old do I think the matter, that makes up the earth, has been in existance?

A. Earth, as we currently know it, with lifes sustaining properties...well, actually I don't want to answer that...

for I fear it will change the theme of this topic...

My focus is on how mountain ranges were formed, not on who made the mountains...
I want to use observed science here...and if one uses observed science...one can see that the above illustration I left of pond ripples, do indeed resemble mountain ranges....which supports my liquified and or puttified theory of what state the rocks would of had to be in for such mountain ranges to form...

I don't feel like repeating myself...

And if I can't generate enough interest in this break through theory...I may have to link this thread to some top notch scientic labs around the country...like Yale or Cal Tech...and see what their rock scientist tell me...

[irman]

Originally Posted by Time and Space

I don't feel like repeating myself...

Please do so ......

OTOH, you may send it in to Popular Mechanics ?

Who knows, they have a much broader reader base.

[Time and Space]

Originally Posted by irman

Please do so ......

OTOH, you may send it in to Popular Mechanics ?

Who knows, they have a much broader reader base.

Popular Mechanics?
Ok...why not...this is break through knowledge here...and all throughout history, whenever someone challenges the scientific status quo...they are intially recieved with skeptisiscm....

I've already mailed this thread to Penn State...i just hope it gets to the proper department...



Again, what do these waves in the ocean resemble to you?
How about mountain ranges....do they not resemble mountain ranges?

Do you see how physics works the same weather we're talking rocks or water.?
And so my liquified or puttified rock theory is dead on thus far...

The mountains were in a semi liquid state when formed...and in order to be in that state had to be super heated and only a sudden violent event or events could generate the kind of friction needed to generate that kinda heat...

The event subsided, and the rocks hardened or froze...that's why mountain ranges resemble waves...cause they basically were....

This million billion year rock formation stuff is unscientific..
Rocks shifting at inches per year or decade, could never generate the kind of force to form mountain ranges....

In nature, land altering events happen suddenly and violently...that's how enough force and pressure and heat is created to change things...

Just please thing about what I'm say...please...it makes so much sense...

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by scarmig

This is a joke, post right?

I'm not taking the bait.

It must be. Numerous spelling mistakes, no concern for accuracy. No critique for why existing theories that have strong theoretical and experimental backing are incorrect. I'm sorry for feeding the troll.

Originally Posted by Time and Space

And if I can't generate enough interest in this break through theory...I may have to link this thread to some top notch scientic labs around the country...like Yale or Cal Tech...and see what their rock scientist tell me...

I can save you the effort. Most of them won't say anything. It's not because they're afraid of your radical ideas, or they're in the clutch of a conspiracy, but because they don't have time to explain to someone who thinks he can explain with twenty minutes of low-grade effort what they've spent the better part of their life trying to understand.

Originally Posted by Time and Space

Popular Mechanics?
Ok...why not...this is break through knowledge here...and all throughout history, whenever someone challenges the scientific status quo...they are intially recieved with skeptisiscm....

I've already mailed this thread to Penn State...i just hope it gets to the proper department...



Again, what do these waves in the ocean resemble to you?
How about mountain ranges....do they not resemble mountain ranges?

Do you see how physics works the same weather we're talking rocks or water.?
And so my liquified or puttified rock theory is dead on thus far...

The mountains were in a semi liquid state when formed...and in order to be in that state had to be super heated and only a sudden violent event or events could generate the kind of friction needed to generate that kinda heat...

The event subsided, and the rocks hardened or froze...that's why mountain ranges resemble waves...cause they basically were....

This million billion year rock formation stuff is unscientific..
Rocks shifting at inches per year or decade, could never generate the kind of force to form mountain ranges....

In nature, land altering events happen suddenly and violently...that's how enough force and pressure and heat is created to change things...

Just please thing about what I'm say...please...it makes so much sense...

The relaxation time for a liquid mountain would be on the order of minutes. The cooling time for molten rock the size of a mountain range would be on the order of thousands of years. How do you explain the disparity in timescales?

Why is this million billion year rock formation stuff unscientific? The radio isotope dating techniques have been well established and peer reviewed. Why are they wrong? In order to be scientific, you'll have to present more evidence than "it must be wrong" or "my way makes more sense".

That's not to discourage your creativity or ideas, but it's insulting for you to question theories as wrong and unscientific when you have not taken the effort to understand either the theories themselves or the evidence supporting those theories. While it is true that new science is often rejected or treated skeptically at first, a great deal more horrible science or total non-science (which is what you're presenting) is rejected, too. Rejection of a radical idea by the mainstream is not evidence that it is right. Only genuine evidence can do that.

[harry chickpea]

"Again, what do these waves in the ocean resemble to you?
How about mountain ranges....do they not resemble mountain ranges?

Do you see how physics works the same weather we're talking rocks or water.?
And so my liquified or puttified rock theory is dead on thus far...

The mountains were in a semi liquid state when formed...and in order to be in that state had to be super heated and only a sudden violent event or events could generate the kind of friction needed to generate that kinda heat..."

Taking this logic further along the path, I was looking at a mug of Coors a while back as it was being shaken by a passing overweight waitress. I thought "Gee, those look like little mountains in there. How cool. Rockies in the Rocky Mtn. beer. I wonder how the big Rockies really formed?" Suddenly it all comes full circle. The creator was an overweight waitress, the Earth was originally a mug of beer, and someone with cold breath blew on the mug and the Rockies froze into formation. The little waves in my mug were really mountains in an itty-bitty universe that I didn't allow to exist because I drank too fast and my breath was too warm. I call this the "Big Burp" theory of creation. Where is my Nobel Prize?

One reason your theory doesn't hold water is that such sudden events as you describe leave characteristic shattered crystals and other artifacts. Since the mountains are often metamorphic rock that has been folded into position or uplifted, and the layering is intact, they could not have been liquid enough during mountain formation to avoid that effect. It does look like a nice theory when drawn out on a bar coaster though.