Continents formation and Earth bulging

In a time of seismic activity would it not be interesting to have a solid theory about the formation of the Continents and the Bulging of planet Earth.

I have to begin with the Universe. Whatever the manner of Big Bang you prefer, there is a common point. That is that, once all the suns, planets, moons or comets were united in a single mass. The physics of how they expand eludes me, but eventually we got the galaxy as it is now.
Comets are future planets or moons. They are magnetic and hot. How can I say that? Once I saw on a short tv amateur movie of a comet going straight at Earth. Eventually it changes direction as following an invisible wall, then it continues beyond Earth path. For me it signifies magnet activity.

Between two comets, the smallest may be the heavier. The hotter it is, the smaller it is. So Earth's core when it was hotter was smaller.

Once a comet is trapped in an orbit, that orbit will become less elliptic as it lose heat. Eventually the comet, either as a planet or a moon, will crust.

The sun too will crust. Some see only sun as a mass of hydrogen. If such a quantity of Hydrogen are gathered in an empty and cold cosmos, it is because you have a mass at the center. The Sun has a core, and I will bet that if you compare the cores of planets and moons, the Sun core will be the smallest.

Eventually the Earth Core has begun to crust. How?

It is said that the Mantle near the Gutenberg discontinuity is liquid. Maybe the Core is enough hot to heat the lower Mantle but I say that the Core is emitting today lumps of matter (and gases). Those lumps of matter were emitted since the beginning by the Core when it was nude. They are of a known composition, they are the future Crust or Continents.
So we have a nude Core that started spitting lumps of matter. Eventually they lose heat enough to get back nearer the Core, forming a liquid layer of a solid solution about the Core. That spitting is still continuing nowadays, it is what permits the Bulging of planet Earth. You see the Continents are stable; they receive no new matter but at the Gutenberg discontinuity the Mantle is receiving a lot of matter.

The liquid layer had eventually divided according to densities. There is a problem here. Rocks are magnetized, isn't it. But when they were liquid they had no magnetism, I suppose. I don't think that even today the Earth's Core is rotating. Its magnetic field must be rotating and that is what will grip the magnetism of rocks and make the Crust rotating. So the Crust is rotating but not the Core. But what it was when the crust was liquid; was it rotating? Rotating or not, density is the principal factor of the subdivision that was in the liquid layer. Say that they divided in Sial and Sima, in honour of these ancient terms.

Sial stands for Si and Al, silicon and aluminium. Sima, silicon and Magnesium. Sure there is a lot of other metals but Al and Mg are the principal ones. Aluminium is less heavy than magnesium. From liquid to rock, there is a change of phase; that implies that once crystallization is done there is heat back in the system; so all the matter that has to crystallize at a certain temperature will do it, hence the formation of a megacontinent floating over a bed of Sima. There is a difference between water crystallization and rock formation. That is once crystallization has started, the concentrations of the remaining Sial changed while with water there is no variation.

Once the Megacontinent done, some parts will crystallize with the Sima, when Sima started to crystallize. Japan, East of Australia, that longitude, were tied to the Sima but the remaining of the Megacontinent were not. It split and had begun traveling for a while to be fixed on the sima later. Since continents were fixed on Sima and were plaques; the continents can't no more move, if something moves it is the plaques. The moving of the continents over the Sima will create the Mohorovic discontinuity; so it must be no moho under Japan and east of Australia.

The continents were fixed on the upper layer of Sima but the lower layer of Sima was still liquid and still is. And there is still new matter that is adding to the lower Mantle. It is said the bottom of the oceans are expanding (sea-floor spreading), so there is subduction elsewhere. These two new bands of that are forming on each side of the big crack (mid-atlantic ridge) are of the same layer of Sima that is crystallized all under the continents; that is the layer of Sima that is crystallized.

The Sima is receiving new stuff; and between the hard Sima and the liquid Sima there is a layer where crystallization is done. Crystallization implies a change of volume. So there is a pressure building and that makes the Crust cracks. Let's imagine a balloon. Put some air then put layers of paint; continue to put air; while the balloon will inflate, the layers if something will crack and there will be no subduction. Same thing for planet Earth; while continents are of a fixed quantity, the sub layer, that is the Sima, will continue to expand.

Now Photosynthesis! The crystallization is done because the planet is losing heat to the Cosmos. Photosynthesis output is all exothermic. When photosynthesis failed to produce new molecules there is less heat to give to the Cosmos, so the Cosmos will take the heat in the Core and the Mantle, hence an increasing of the volume of the Sima. Hence more seismic activity and tornadoes and stronger hurricanes.

I think with that written I oblige the reset of Geography. Do you?

A tragic error in watershed management.

Once I read a story in "Trees", an yearbook of the Agricultural department of the U.S.A.. It consists of a mountain to manage adjacent to farmlands. They wanted most of the water coming from the river that feeds the mountain. They have to thin the forests of the watershed. The possibilities range from light to heavy thinnings. So the possibilities range from five to fifty percent of the forest canopy. Preposterously, they decided that the more heavy the thinning, more water will be available. So they cut at forty percent the forest lands. So they thinned the forest lands about forty percent. The reasoning was that then with fewer trees to absorb water, more water will be available. They neglected to verify what will happen with light thinnings. If you are scientific, you have to verify all the options. You cannot decide of what will be the results. It is the same people who decided that prescribed burning should be banished in resinous forest management.

Within a resinous stand, you cannot cultivate, one by one, the trees as in a hardwood forest. Because, once the stand is thinned, the seedlings will not sprout.
So, they decided that forty percent was a good measure and so, more water will be available for the farmlands. And that was a big error.

I say, if they had thinned with five or ten percent the forests regularly, the output of the river will have increased after a brief adaptation. The adaptation is the time required for seedlings to establish. At the start they would have had to thin at about the five years. After a long time, the thinning must be done at about the two years. But there is the problem that such stands were resinous (Pines). You have to do "prescribed burning" or "controlled burns". I don’t know if it will work, but prescribed burning may be replaced by raking the surface for liberating the mineral soil, as for permitting the seedlings to establish on a surface free of soil litter. It is time consuming while prescribed burning is not but requires strategy.

So, as the Quebec may lose its hydroelectric plants of the North, I say that if they had chosen thinning, prescribed burning and tree seeds planting, then there will be no problem with water out there.

As for the science behind my conclusion, be sure I would have wanted to find an university willing to evaluate my theories. I still hope to prove my point one day.

The failure of the universities.

If you go to those two sites, there is my first article of science opinion about photosynthesis.

www.nabble.com/Photosynthesis:-exothermic-or-endothermic--to5656730.html
www.bio.net/bionet/mm/btk-mca/2006-August/003267.html

Three years that article ranks top-five. Eventually I start my BlogSpot. Surprise, that first article was tied to me. And my “Photosynthesis” was sixteen in no time. Now, all these results are eliminated from a Google research.

It is not only for photosynthesis that I have thesis. Even if I am stupid on many points, theses I got. How? I got centiles. 96, 92, 91 for chemistry, physics and geography! But I am a weak student. I have a pierced skull, and that gives me a weak memory and a difficulty of attention. Worst I am suffering apathy. Either it interests me or not. I have never been able to learn my multiplication tables by rote.

Young I was not interested in studies. Instead I started my life as a monk: Pauvres de St-François. But I am not homosexual, and conflicts had aroused. I had a premiere formation in electronics and started a new career as sylviculture worker. Eventually I got a formation as technician in forest management. But curious accidents had struck me, and at my forty I was unable to work physically. So, I start my university. I was hungry for information. The problem is the university staff never checked upon my results of “les examens du ministère de l’Éducation”. They see me as a prey to get cash from. But they let me study for five years during which I have access to their books. My last session was a clash. They refused me the right to answer exams with different notions. I would have had, if so, quite a good number of theses then. So, I quit them. But I had had my vengeance; I presented myself with a copy of my results to the biology director. Things would have changed then, have I accepted to forget and to forgive them. I quit them.

The problem with the universities is that as student we have exams by which we are not independent of our teacher. With exam with centiles, we are independent of our teacher and our Institution. But other manner of exam may be devised. I suggest that the teacher that gives the course be not the one who does the exam. But that will not please the Institutions and the syndicates of professors. I suggest that at university level be two manners of formation.
Industries will not employ one with big formation. Once the job done, the researches, there is no need for big formation. You need big formation for evolving the situation but once it is established you lose your job. So, formations as technician and engineer may continue as before, but high formation must be different. A suggestion, universities may pay student for studying. For that it has to be for the elite; not cash elite but centile elite.

As for now the universities fail to produce sound theories. Worst, some fields are filled with bluffers. They bluff. When someone says ... if you are not Ph D level you will probably not understood.... they have nothing serious as theories. They are often stalled but they do not want to lose the face.

There is at the end of a session an evaluation. That evaluation must not be done by the University. It must be by an independent party.

Whatever you will do, as it is, it is not working. The Universities failed to produce sound theories. Sure there are fields as mechanics which are good. But the whole time you are there, the only method is to learn by rote.

To understand or to learn by rote; to be or not to be!

I will give you an exemple of utter incompetence. It concerns Capillarity and vegetal physiology. The xylem of trees may be considered as a capillary tube. It is presented mercury and water. A capillary tube in mercury will present meniscuses turning down, and the level of the liquid in the tube will be lower than the adjacent liquid. For water, the meniscuses will be turning up, and the inside level will be higher. With that, they are able to provide a theory in vegetal physiology.
All is false. Why. Simply, the concept of capillarity is false because it is incomplete. You just need a talc powder; this will make the water not adhering to the walls of the tube. That is water and mercury will act the same. No difference. Meniscuses turning down and a lower level in the tube.
So, whatever has been said with a false premiss is false. You do not have a sound theory about vegetal physiology.

Wildfires.

We cannot fight wildfires. It will only forestall the inevitable; you will get monsters. As for now there is the British Columbia of Canada which has experimented with controlled burns. I still prefer “prescribed burning”.

Prescribed burning had been banished since the year 1920. They decided they preferred large cut areas over light ones.

It is the seedlings will not sprout; the litter is too acid. You must have large areas for the rains to wash the acidity. Or, you burn your forest.
A fire, for a forest, is a Victory.

With gentle prescribed burning you do it when the winds have the good condition; that is the stability and the strength.

With harsh conditions, you must create lines of counter-fires. Make sure the fire goes in the good direction, and let go. The burned lines will encounter and nullify.

The mentality of being afraid of fires was a big error. The true problems may be the universities which failed producing Students able to understand what is at work.

With natural fires you have acid rains and global warming gases. Acid rains, you know the words. What is “acid rain” and what is the purpose of acid rains.
Your universities failed to produce someone able to tackle the problem.

There is no democracy in Sciences.

Fail to undergo the right conclusions and it may become disastrous. As to say, you have a worldwide desertification problem. With the better of the intentions, you have prepared your end. Worst, you believe in a global warming.
I have demonstrated that the oxygen of photosynthesis be exothermic. That implies a reset of many a science. I provoked the questioning about that. Now we will see if with new theories there would be new strategies. Someone has succeeded healing a corner of the desert.
It is simple. They dig a trench, put some mulch and have a lot of planting. The level of salt in the soils has receded. Greening the desert, he called it. So, you have the strategy and must have the theory if there is to be better strategies.