Plate Tectonics:- (No credible mechanism - 2.)

Debunking Plate Tectonics - Strike 2.

Concerning soup, porridge and tea
(and simpletons like me...)

Since Robert Grumbine recommended beating some cornstarch with a spoon
to appreciate what mantle flow as a viscous solid was all about, I
thought I'd make a pot of tea to see what convection was all about as a
fluid.

Now the interesting thing here is that it tumbles nineteen to the dozen
down below, but the skin on the top is is as solid as a rock. How
come? What's more if you stir it with a spoon then you get all this
wild whirling dervish inside the tea, but after a minute the skin sits
still while underneath the surface it keeps whirling.

What's even more is, if you let it cool down, then put it back on the
heat to heat it up again, very soon you begin to get a bit of steam,
and the skin starts to form (again), (somehow it wasn't there to begin
with the second time), this time with the odd tea leaf embedded in it.
The skin is a surface of heat exchange between what's going on down
below (the leaves are again going helter skelter up and down , more or
less in place) and what's going on up above (steam). And gradually tea
leaves get caught in this skin, where they stay (again) solid as a
rock. When it gets really stewed you could just about stand on the
stuff its so solid with clotted tea leaves. That are not moving at
all, even though everything down below is. Like crazy.

And my porridge goes 'plop' and hits me me in the eye when I put it on
the heat.

And so does my soup.

Nothing to do with skin convects at all .

And when I look at those nice pics of convection on the web, they're
all numerical simulations. Tweaked to look good.

So what bit of this 'convection' model am I supposed to swallow?

"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...
Debunking Plate Tectonics - Strike 2.

Concerning soup, porridge and tea
(and simpletons like me...)

Since Robert Grumbine recommended beating some cornstarch with a spoon
to appreciate what mantle flow as a viscous solid was all about, I
thought I'd make a pot of tea to see what convection was all about as a
fluid.

Now the interesting thing here is that it tumbles nineteen to the dozen
down below, but the skin on the top is is as solid as a rock. How
come? What's more if you stir it with a spoon then you get all this
wild whirling dervish inside the tea, but after a minute the skin sits
still while underneath the surface it keeps whirling.

What's even more is, if you let it cool down, then put it back on the
heat to heat it up again, very soon you begin to get a bit of steam,
and the skin starts to form (again), (somehow it wasn't there to begin
with the second time), this time with the odd tea leaf embedded in it.
The skin is a surface of heat exchange between what's going on down
below (the leaves are again going helter skelter up and down , more or
less in place) and what's going on up above (steam). And gradually tea
leaves get caught in this skin, where they stay (again) solid as a
rock. When it gets really stewed you could just about stand on the
stuff its so solid with clotted tea leaves. That are not moving at
all, even though everything down below is. Like crazy.

And my porridge goes 'plop' and hits me me in the eye when I put it on
the heat.

And so does my soup.

Nothing to do with skin convects at all .

And when I look at those nice pics of convection on the web, they're
all numerical simulations. Tweaked to look good.

So what bit of this 'convection' model am I supposed to swallow?


You know, your lunacy really has nothing to do with talk.origins.

Would you please just go away? The signal-to-noise ratio's bad enough as it
is.

don findlay wrote:

Debunking Plate Tectonics - Strike 2.

Concerning soup, porridge and tea
(and simpletons like me...)

Since Robert Grumbine recommended beating some cornstarch with a spoon
to appreciate what mantle flow as a viscous solid was all about, I
thought I'd make a pot of tea to see what convection was all about as a
fluid.

Now the interesting thing here is that it tumbles nineteen to the dozen
down below, but the skin on the top is is as solid as a rock.

Your tea has a skin on it? You need to wash that pot.

[snip]

don findlay wrote:
Debunking Plate Tectonics - Strike 2.

Concerning soup, porridge and tea
(and simpletons like me...)

Since Robert Grumbine recommended beating some cornstarch with a spoon
to appreciate what mantle flow as a viscous solid was all about, I
thought I'd make a pot of tea to see what convection was all about as a
fluid.

Now the interesting thing here is that it tumbles nineteen to the dozen
down below, but the skin on the top is is as solid as a rock. How
come? What's more if you stir it with a spoon then you get all this
wild whirling dervish inside the tea, but after a minute the skin sits
still while underneath the surface it keeps whirling.

That's a good start. The next step should be popping your medication
in your mouth and washing it down with that tea.

"Inez" wrote in message
oups.com...

don findlay wrote:
Debunking Plate Tectonics - Strike 2.

Concerning soup, porridge and tea
(and simpletons like me...)

Since Robert Grumbine recommended beating some cornstarch with a spoon
to appreciate what mantle flow as a viscous solid was all about, I
thought I'd make a pot of tea to see what convection was all about as a
fluid.

Now the interesting thing here is that it tumbles nineteen to the dozen
down below, but the skin on the top is is as solid as a rock. How
come? What's more if you stir it with a spoon then you get all this
wild whirling dervish inside the tea, but after a minute the skin sits
still while underneath the surface it keeps whirling.

That's a good start. The next step should be popping your medication
in your mouth and washing it down with that tea.

Meanie-pants.

["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2006-06-23, don findlay wrote:
Debunking Plate Tectonics - Strike 2.

Concerning soup, porridge and tea
(and simpletons like me...)

Since Robert Grumbine recommended beating some cornstarch with a spoon
to appreciate what mantle flow as a viscous solid was all about, I
thought I'd make a pot of tea to see what convection was all about as a
fluid.

Now the interesting thing here is that it tumbles nineteen to the dozen
down below, but the skin on the top is is as solid as a rock. How
come? What's more if you stir it with a spoon then you get all this
wild whirling dervish inside the tea, but after a minute the skin sits
still while underneath the surface it keeps whirling.

What's even more is, if you let it cool down, then put it back on the
heat to heat it up again, very soon you begin to get a bit of steam,
and the skin starts to form (again), (somehow it wasn't there to begin
with the second time), this time with the odd tea leaf embedded in it.
The skin is a surface of heat exchange between what's going on down
below (the leaves are again going helter skelter up and down , more or
less in place) and what's going on up above (steam). And gradually tea
leaves get caught in this skin, where they stay (again) solid as a
rock. When it gets really stewed you could just about stand on the
stuff its so solid with clotted tea leaves. That are not moving at
all, even though everything down below is. Like crazy.

And my porridge goes 'plop' and hits me me in the eye when I put it on
the heat.

And so does my soup.

Nothing to do with skin convects at all .

And when I look at those nice pics of convection on the web, they're
all numerical simulations. Tweaked to look good.

So what bit of this 'convection' model am I supposed to swallow?

Oh dear. When you suffer a head injury, you really should go to
the hospital and have them check to see that the trauma isn't this
serious.

Mark

wrote:
"Inez" wrote in message
oups.com...

don findlay wrote:
Debunking Plate Tectonics - Strike 2.

Concerning soup, porridge and tea
(and simpletons like me...)

Since Robert Grumbine recommended beating some cornstarch with a spoon
to appreciate what mantle flow as a viscous solid was all about, I
thought I'd make a pot of tea to see what convection was all about as a
fluid.

Now the interesting thing here is that it tumbles nineteen to the dozen
down below, but the skin on the top is is as solid as a rock. How
come? What's more if you stir it with a spoon then you get all this
wild whirling dervish inside the tea, but after a minute the skin sits
still while underneath the surface it keeps whirling.

That's a good start. The next step should be popping your medication
in your mouth and washing it down with that tea.

Meanie-pants.

I know, but I've nothing else good to wear for casual Friday.

don findlay wrote:
Inez wrote:

That's a good start. The next step should be popping your medication
in your mouth and washing it down with that tea.

Why?

It's easier than swallowing them dry.

You've no trouble with pots of porridge, or pots of soup
describing the theory, have you?

Porridge? Who are you, Goldilocks?

... . What have you got against pots
of tea?

In general, or as a research model of plate tectonics?

You even get a meniscus at the contact.

I had to wikipedia "meniscus," and frankly it appears to be a hole in
your model, not a bonus for it.

don findlay wrote:
Debunking Plate Tectonics - Strike 2.

Concerning soup, porridge and tea
(and simpletons like me...)
-
-

So, ..on the simple grounds that the popular models of soup and
porridge promulgated to support Plate Tectonics
------------------------------------
"The mobile rock beneath the rigid plates is believed to be moving in a
circular manner somewhat like a pot of thick soup when heated to
boiling. The heated soup rises to the surface, spreads and begins to
cool, and then sinks back to the bottom of the pot where it is reheated
and rises again."
-------------------------------------
...... is pure nonsense, I am claiming a second strike.

There is no reason why the solid rock of the mantle should be more
representative of soup and porridge than it is of tea. In fact, since
we get irregular motion of the tea -leaves rising when the pot is
heated, there would seem to be a closer analogue with the irregular
'convection' that is actually supposed to happen in the mantle. The
standard model of convection
http://www.dstu.univ-montp2.fr/PERSO...convection.gif
is no longer considered relevant.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...23ed55dcc6bc6c

-------------------------------------------------
"Although the concept of plate tectonics is universally accepted, it is
incomplete in that there is no agreement on the mechanism that drives
the plates. It has been suggested that they are driven from the side,
that is pulled by subducting slabs and pushed by negative buoyancy
forces from subsidence of oceanic plates ("ridge-push" force). Another
view is that plate motion is driven by mantle convection. The motion of
the plates can be explained by either of these concepts."
http://www.dstu.univ-montp2.fr/PERSO.../research.html
------------------------------------------------

"Incomplete"? - Read 'irrelevant'. It's based on nonsense..
(You'll even get conflicting opinions whether the heat source is
supposed to be in the mantle or in the core.)

You can try (with difficulty) to argue one or the other (plate
mechanisms or core mantle mechanisms) , ...But not both of either case.
Quadrupling models for what drives plate tectonics quarters its
validity, not multiplies it. But it's not 'quadrupling', ..is it?
It's 1/ 4x3x2, which makes it 1/24th. And that's just with those
bloopers. You can see it's rapidly approaching bull****, ..and that's
just with the theery, ..we haven't even begun with the GEOLORGIE.

But don't worry, .. it's only exam after all. And you're all a dead
cert to fail. So why don't y'all just head off down to the pub and
indulge in some pre-apocalyse commiseration. Marc there doesn't even
want you to talk about it (the distribution of origins of Life on
Earth) ...you're only making him feel nervous.

Where's the Woof? I know, ...(swotting hard.)

(Now, what have we got? Just 11, ..is that all? )

"Hey, Teach, ..We're all off down the pub. You coming?"