Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 5

Mission Impossible - Convection.

Plate Tectonics' story. Think about it.

1. A whirling mass of space dust, planetoids and planetisimals
gravitational coalesce in a cataclysm of impacts and heat generation.
2. The mass incandesces.
3. Using up the heat as it cools down, this mass differentiates and
forms a crust.

OK thus far? Y/N? So, ..

3. It's used up its heat to do that - make a crust and differentiate
it. It doesn't matter how many sources of heat remaining are intrisic
to the earth, there will not be enough left over to break the crust up
and destroy the products of convection. If there were, why would it
ever have formed a crust in the first place?

What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?

What convection-leg is plate tectonics standing on?

Count strike 5.

don findlay wrote:
Mission Impossible - Convection.

Plate Tectonics' story. Think about it.

1. A whirling mass of space dust, planetoids and planetisimals
gravitational coalesce in a cataclysm of impacts and heat generation.
2. The mass incandesces.
3. Using up the heat as it cools down, this mass differentiates and
forms a crust.

OK thus far? Y/N? So, ..

3. It's used up its heat to do that - make a crust and differentiate
it. It doesn't matter how many sources of heat remaining are intrisic
to the earth, there will not be enough left over to break the crust up
and destroy the products of convection. If there were, why would it
ever have formed a crust in the first place?

What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?

What convection-leg is plate tectonics standing on?

Count strike 5.

It didn't "use up" its heat to make and differentiate the crust. Most
of the heat is still there, in the core and the mantle. Just enough
was used up to make and differentiate the crust.

What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?

- Wilbur

wrote:

don findlay wrote:
Mission Impossible - Convection.

Plate Tectonics' story. Think about it.

1. A whirling mass of space dust, planetoids and planetisimals
gravitational coalesce in a cataclysm of impacts and heat generation.
2. The mass incandesces.
3. Using up the heat as it cools down, this mass differentiates and
forms a crust.

OK thus far? Y/N? So, ..

3. It's used up its heat to do that - make a crust and differentiate
it. It doesn't matter how many sources of heat remaining are intrisic
to the earth, there will not be enough left over to break the crust up
and destroy the products of convection. If there were, why would it
ever have formed a crust in the first place?

What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?

What convection-leg is plate tectonics standing on?

Count strike 5.

It didn't "use up" its heat to make and differentiate the crust. Most
of the heat is still there, in the core and the mantle. Just enough
was used up to make and differentiate the crust.

What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?

- Wilbur

Lord Rayleigh in *1906* calculated that the heat from radioactivity was
sufficient to persist for billions of years.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

John Wilkins wrote:
wrote:


don findlay wrote:

Mission Impossible - Convection.

Plate Tectonics' story. Think about it.

1. A whirling mass of space dust, planetoids and planetisimals
gravitational coalesce in a cataclysm of impacts and heat generation.
2. The mass incandesces.
3. Using up the heat as it cools down, this mass differentiates and
forms a crust.

OK thus far? Y/N? So, ..

3. It's used up its heat to do that - make a crust and differentiate
it. It doesn't matter how many sources of heat remaining are intrisic
to the earth, there will not be enough left over to break the crust up
and destroy the products of convection. If there were, why would it
ever have formed a crust in the first place?

What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?

What convection-leg is plate tectonics standing on?

Count strike 5.

It didn't "use up" its heat to make and differentiate the crust. Most
of the heat is still there, in the core and the mantle. Just enough
was used up to make and differentiate the crust.

What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?

- Wilbur


Lord Rayleigh in *1906* calculated that the heat from radioactivity was
sufficient to persist for billions of years.

Actually, differentiation, by gravity, creates heat.
Klaus

wrote in message
oups.com...

don findlay wrote:
Mission Impossible - Convection.

Plate Tectonics' story. Think about it.

1. A whirling mass of space dust, planetoids and planetisimals
gravitational coalesce in a cataclysm of impacts and heat generation.
2. The mass incandesces.
3. Using up the heat as it cools down, this mass differentiates and
forms a crust.

OK thus far? Y/N? So, ..

3. It's used up its heat to do that - make a crust and differentiate
it. It doesn't matter how many sources of heat remaining are intrisic
to the earth, there will not be enough left over to break the crust up
and destroy the products of convection. If there were, why would it
ever have formed a crust in the first place?

What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?

What convection-leg is plate tectonics standing on?

Count strike 5.

It didn't "use up" its heat to make and differentiate the crust. Most
of the heat is still there, in the core and the mantle. Just enough
was used up to make and differentiate the crust.

What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?

- Wilbur

No one ever said that Don Findlay has any sense.

George

don findlay wrote:
Mission Impossible - Convection.

Plate Tectonics' story. Think about it.

1. A whirling mass of space dust, planetoids and planetisimals
gravitational coalesce in a cataclysm of impacts and heat generation.
2. The mass incandesces.
3. Using up the heat as it cools down, this mass differentiates and
forms a crust.

OK thus far? Y/N? So, ..

3. It's used up its heat to do that - make a crust and differentiate
it. It doesn't matter how many sources of heat remaining are intrisic
to the earth, there will not be enough left over to break the crust up
and destroy the products of convection. If there were, why would it
ever have formed a crust in the first place?

What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?

What convection-leg is plate tectonics standing on?

Count strike 5.

Moving on, it's obvious that you've never seen lava ponds or indeed
done any cooking, as you'd know then that what you've posted is tripe,
so are you blind or a misogynist / McDonalds biggest customer?

"bodrules" wrote in message
oups.com...

don findlay wrote:
Mission Impossible - Convection.

Plate Tectonics' story. Think about it.

1. A whirling mass of space dust, planetoids and planetisimals
gravitational coalesce in a cataclysm of impacts and heat generation.
2. The mass incandesces.
3. Using up the heat as it cools down, this mass differentiates and
forms a crust.

OK thus far? Y/N? So, ..

3. It's used up its heat to do that - make a crust and differentiate
it. It doesn't matter how many sources of heat remaining are intrisic
to the earth, there will not be enough left over to break the crust up
and destroy the products of convection. If there were, why would it
ever have formed a crust in the first place?

What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?

What convection-leg is plate tectonics standing on?

Count strike 5.

Moving on, it's obvious that you've never seen lava ponds or indeed
done any cooking, as you'd know then that what you've posted is tripe,
so are you blind or a misogynist / McDonalds biggest customer?

Cooking? DF? He gets monthly care packages from Turdhard.

George

What you said would be true if there were only stable isotopes present.
There were not. Lots of radioisotopes contribute heat.

HB

don findlay wrote:
Mission Impossible - Convection.

Plate Tectonics' story. Think about it.

1. A whirling mass of space dust, planetoids and planetisimals
gravitational coalesce in a cataclysm of impacts and heat generation.
2. The mass incandesces.
3. Using up the heat as it cools down, this mass differentiates and
forms a crust.

OK thus far? Y/N? So, ..

3. It's used up its heat to do that - make a crust and differentiate
it. It doesn't matter how many sources of heat remaining are intrisic
to the earth, there will not be enough left over to break the crust up
and destroy the products of convection. If there were, why would it
ever have formed a crust in the first place?

What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?

What convection-leg is plate tectonics standing on?

Count strike 5.

wrote:
What you said would be true if there were only stable isotopes present.
There were not. Lots of radioisotopes contribute heat.

HB

What he said was not true, even if there were only stable isotopes!
There still would have been some convection, formation of crust plates,
and plate movements. The difference is that the convection would not
have lasted as long.
Klaus


don findlay wrote:

Mission Impossible - Convection.

Plate Tectonics' story. Think about it.

1. A whirling mass of space dust, planetoids and planetisimals
gravitational coalesce in a cataclysm of impacts and heat generation.
2. The mass incandesces.
3. Using up the heat as it cools down, this mass differentiates and
forms a crust.

OK thus far? Y/N? So, ..

3. It's used up its heat to do that - make a crust and differentiate
it. It doesn't matter how many sources of heat remaining are intrisic
to the earth, there will not be enough left over to break the crust up
and destroy the products of convection. If there were, why would it
ever have formed a crust in the first place?

What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?

What convection-leg is plate tectonics standing on?

Count strike 5.

don findlay wrote:

Mission Impossible - Convection.

Plate Tectonics' story. Think about it.

1. A whirling mass of space dust, planetoids and planetisimals
gravitational coalesce in a cataclysm of impacts and heat generation.
2. The mass incandesces.
3. Using up the heat as it cools down, this mass differentiates and
forms a crust.

OK thus far? Y/N? So, ..

3. It's used up its heat to do that - make a crust and differentiate
it. It doesn't matter how many sources of heat remaining are intrisic
to the earth, there will not be enough left over to break the crust up
and destroy the products of convection. If there were, why would it
ever have formed a crust in the first place?

What's difficult about this? Surely this is common sense?

What convection-leg is plate tectonics standing on?

Count strike 5.

I see your grasp of baseball is as secure as your grasp of geology.