Theory Of Himalayas Problematic

Doubts raised about theory of Professor Wang-Ping Chen at the University of Illinois, Journal of Geophysical Research.

* * *

Ref If you map out the movement described, there's a problem with the proposed solution.

Let's accept for the moment as true the information presented in the Independent: Scientists detected something beneath the surface.

* * *

Here's the problem with the explanation as the Independent has reported it. It remains to be understood whether the theory is something else; or whether it is also flawed.

* * *

I'm not convinced the mystery of the Himalayas ha been solved.
That there may be a chunk of rock slowly sinking toward the center of the Earth fails to explain something very simple: Once the rock moved, and something suddenly shot up like a cork, what stopped it from continuing?

That's one problem.

* * *

The other problem is the massive slap that supposedly "dropped off" -- how did it "drop off", and what force moved it?

___ Did the earth shift?

___ Did the earth start to slide?

Gravity doesn't work that way. Things don't slide, they fall.

In other words, It appears that they've use circular reasoning to explain why the Himalayas are there, but not really answered: How did it happen.

Saying a massive slap "dropped off" this does not explain what caused the massive slab to drop off; it just starts with the premise that something dropped:

___ Why did it drop?

___ What started the sliding?

* * *

Put that side. Somehow, this slap was [a] sliding; and [b] dropping -- without explanation -- then suddenly a convenient object, apparently under some pressure shot n the opposite direction, upward, defying gravity.

___ What was keeping the lighter crust in place?

___ What was pushing the lighter crust?

___ What started the sliding?

___ Why didn't these dropping-rising rocks collide and neutralize each other?

* * *

Do This Without Reference to Original Diagrams in Paper

Once the rock slid -- pretend it was to the right -- think about what was originally pushing the rock from below: We're asked to believe the "top" was removed; that means that, in this theory, there was pressure from below that caused the movement, which leads us back to the original question:

___ What started the sliding?

___ What was pushing the rock upwards?

The theory doesn't answer these questions, only narrowly -- apparently -- defines the solution without considering what came before or what should have been observed elsewhere after this event: Where else did it happen?

* * *

It may be true that something slid; and then something moved up. But the theory does not answer:

A. What was the pressure below, and where was it coming from;

B. What started the sliding;

C. Why did the sliding stop;

D. Why didn't the pressure -- supposedly pushing up -- not cause other things to magically get thrown into the atmosphere, here, nearby, or in other places?

Map out the physical movements, consider gravity, and ask yourself what started this; why did it continue; and then why did it stop. These are other things which appear not to be explained or answered in this theory.

Theories explain things, they don't generate new questions which require non-sense explanations.

* * *

The Same Rocks Cannot Have Dual States

Rocks are either hard or they are not; a rock cannot have a quality of being hard, but the quality of being soft.

Overall, as you think about the explanation, I'm having trouble buying the notion that rocks were magically hard enough to push things; but seem to have the opposite property -- than of shale-like quick sand which is soupy -- to allow things to mix, spin, and rise and descend, like smoke through clouds.

Rocks cannot have two properties: They cannot be both hard and soft; and they cannot be hard to press things; while soupy-like it descends.

* * *

Geophysics

Overall, think about gravity: Gravity is pulling down; and to argue that something just "popped" would have to explain:

A. Why did the forces of gravity, on an arbitrary day, suddenly get overpowered by some forces?

B. Where did these forces come from; and why did they end?

Once gravity is on the object, the gravity stays constant; the theory would have us believe that gravity suddenly got turned off; got really big; then returned to account for the sudden movement of objects; their stopping; then their rapid descent to the underworld.

I am not inclined to believe that a rock would have enough velocity to create, suddenly, an under pressure to lift it like a wing; rocks don't move that quickly.

If this were true, then are we to believe that the holes in the Pacific Ocean floor are a result of the opposite motion down?

It may be true, but it seems fanciful.

* * *

Anchor Theory

Suppose under Tibet there was an anchor holding the land in place. Supposedly the anchor connected the land above started to slide, was disconnected, and the movement of the anchor forced the land to move. . .

___ What caused the block to detach?

___ Why would the block/anchor slide down, why not sideways?

___ If there was a "cork" and "pressure" why didn't the moving anchor shoot up by this pressure?

___ If there was room-space for the anchor to fall, why didn't the mountain follow it?

___ How do we explain the opposite motions -- the falling anchor and the rising cork?

___ Why didn't the anchor, that was supposedly falling, not create a space that would have sucked down the top lawyer?

___ How do we explain that apparent downward movement, and hole above the anchor; but the opposite motion -- instead of something falling down -- something going up: This would imply that the upward pressure was higher than the net anchoring effect, raising the question: Why didn't this net upward pressure not push the anchor up; or not offset the anchor earlier?

___ What caused the chain of the anchor to break?

___ If there was something that "wasn't there" [permitting the object, anchor, or block to slide] why didn't that space get filled by something else; and why didn't the anchor get caught in the upsurge?

___ How many anchors do you know that, without explanation, are connected to something; then suddenly get cut; but the net result is the water rushing under the boat and lifting the boat out of the water?

An anchor to cause that much displacement can only do that if the anchor was out of the land, then suddenly got thrown into the land. Moving an anchor up and down in water doesn't change the water level; the water level will only change if the anchor moves in and out of the water, but it still has to be a very big anchor, and a very tiny puddle. we don't have that: The relative crust depth is thinner than the anchor size; and the distance from the surface of the earth to the center.

* * *

___ If the anchor supposedly slid down, or to the right, why haven't the mountains fallen back into that apparent quick sand, and crated a depression?

* * *

I'll have to examine the details, but at this point, the theory appears to either have not been properly explained; or the theory, in the original paper, is not credible.

___ Where did the surge come from?

___ Does the theory really answer things, or does it require explanations which defy reason, and raise more questions?

A theory shouldn't have this many problems: It should do the opposite, provide explanations, not require us to embrace possibly violations of geophysics, gravity, and other laws of nature.

* * *

It may be true that there is missing mantle; and that there is something under the surface.

But I'm not buying the notion that the surge appeared out of nowhere; or that things started moving for not reason. This theory doesn't appear to answer those questions, only asks us to accept as a premise that it started, without credibly explaining why it didn't happen before; or hasn't happened since.

Something doesn't sound right with what we've been presented.