Ask a guru a question

"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...
Don Findlay has a link on his website about Plate Tectonics saying to
"ask a guru a question" - down the bottom of his page
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/abstract.html
Does anybody have any idea of a reasonable question I could ask about
plate tectonics? Does plate Tectonics have any questions? Or only
answers? And if it's only got answers, what's the biggest one?


Don, I didn't get to the Hot springs,a change in plans. But, I did give your
questions and comments some thought and came up with:
There are two great questions in plate tectonics.
First, What are the possible configurations (Both geometrical and
petrological) of a subduction zone, given several possible types of plate
boundary interactions and resultant thermodynamics?

And the other is an old question.
Are past geological processes the same as those of the present? ("Present
key to past.") For example, Do continental basement complexes, or the
sediments unconformably overlying them, show signs of either earth expansion
or of plate tectonics?

You can get the answers to these with a lot of googling, dusting off Ye Olde
Text books,or getting out into the field and studying what you find out
there. So far, it seems as though plate tectonics may win that contest. Who
knows, maybe boudins may play an important role here.

As far as 'Blobtonics and the Driving Force'...? These may help:

http://www.geophysik.uni-frankfurt.d...onvection.html or

http://www.geophysik.uni-frankfurt.d...lin/metol.html

A few Questions for earth expansionists still remain:
One: If the earth did expand, what and where is the source for the
considerable amount of mass manifested in a relatively short time? Given
current Newtonian type dynamics, evolved alchemy, and a bit of
thermodynamics,
this additional mass is a significant problem for earth expansionists.
Regardless of process, the results MUST be the petrology we think is below
today's crust. If EE can come up with a new mass breeder, PT just might
re-evaluate their schools of thought.
Another:
Where do the west coasts of both north and south America snap into the
jigsaw puzzle, just before expansion that is? Any correlations across the
pacific? Although we might find a few Archaean basement complex types of
correlations, which would be consistent with past configurations of
continents on a dynamic crust, where are the geological correlations just
before the Triassic/Jurassic expansion event?

The main question I have is not so much with the mass problem nor the
basement complex matchers, but more like:

Given the surface area of a proto-earth sphere(oid?) with a radius of 3820
Km, (slightly larger than the present core), what is the depth of the ocean
given 1.37X10^9 Km^3 of water?
Timberwoof, you are good with numbers, how deep the proto ocean?

A quick calculation gives about 7.4565 Km of sea water above the proto
earth's surface,(One without ocean basins).
Not only no dry land, but all life had to be aquatic in pre-Triassic. So
much for Devonian amphibians and insects, as well as Glossopteris and
horsetails http://www.ancientmicroworlds.com/ga...ossoptera.html . And
goodbye Ed Conrad's Man older than coal.
Possibly the tops of very high volcanic peaks saw daylight, but I think I'll
pass trying to prove that.
------------------

I will give you and other EE enthusiasts this: Rotational dynamics just
might play a greater role in creating recent topographical features, as well
as to contribute to the rheology of subsurface rocks and spheres. This still
needs a little work though. A migrating pole of rotation will create a
migrating equatorial bulge. A wave of topographic expansion with an
amplitude of 47 Km (27 Miles) just might give us some expansion type
effects,...No?

Guru Don, OK, there be a few questions. We can discuss possible answers if
you want to continue. I am a bit rusty in this arena, but still try to keep
active doing personal field work, though not as much as I used to. This
spring I am going to visit a field of old basaltic cones that contain
xenoliths of lherzolite and peridotite. I understand that this locality is
not too far from a few hot springs. Should be an interesting trip. Think
'retrograde metamorphism and isotopic daughters'. Will E.

The rotational dynamics of any celestial object which is in a
plasma/plastic/molten state indicates sheer bands straddling the
Equatorial region with different rotational regions occuring at higher
latitudes towards the poles .The Sun's plasma displays this
differential rotation feature with the accompanying deviation from a
perfect sphere -

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/distance/str...n-rotation.gif

The Earth's deviation from a perfect sphere is attributable to the
rotational dynamics occuring in the plastic/molten composition below
the fractured crust ,it also serves the purpose of moving that
fractured crust to generate surface geological features .

The composition of the molten material , planetary deviation and the
position and speeds of the sheer bands would present a productive
approach to the mechanism for crustal motion insofar as it joins
planetary shape and crustal motion under a common mechanism.

Sorry nobody ever took up on this and that stationary Earth/convention
cell mechanism still dominate as a pseudo-mechanism.


WillE1 wrote:
"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...
Don Findlay has a link on his website about Plate Tectonics saying to
"ask a guru a question" - down the bottom of his page
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/abstract.html
Does anybody have any idea of a reasonable question I could ask about
plate tectonics? Does plate Tectonics have any questions? Or only
answers? And if it's only got answers, what's the biggest one?


Don, I didn't get to the Hot springs,a change in plans. But, I did give your
questions and comments some thought and came up with:
There are two great questions in plate tectonics.
First, What are the possible configurations (Both geometrical and
petrological) of a subduction zone, given several possible types of plate
boundary interactions and resultant thermodynamics?

And the other is an old question.
Are past geological processes the same as those of the present? ("Present
key to past.") For example, Do continental basement complexes, or the
sediments unconformably overlying them, show signs of either earth expansion
or of plate tectonics?

You can get the answers to these with a lot of googling, dusting off Ye Olde
Text books,or getting out into the field and studying what you find out
there. So far, it seems as though plate tectonics may win that contest. Who
knows, maybe boudins may play an important role here.

As far as 'Blobtonics and the Driving Force'...? These may help:

http://www.geophysik.uni-frankfurt.d...onvection.html or

http://www.geophysik.uni-frankfurt.d...lin/metol.html

A few Questions for earth expansionists still remain:
One: If the earth did expand, what and where is the source for the
considerable amount of mass manifested in a relatively short time? Given
current Newtonian type dynamics, evolved alchemy, and a bit of
thermodynamics,
this additional mass is a significant problem for earth expansionists.
Regardless of process, the results MUST be the petrology we think is below
today's crust. If EE can come up with a new mass breeder, PT just might
re-evaluate their schools of thought.
Another:
Where do the west coasts of both north and south America snap into the
jigsaw puzzle, just before expansion that is? Any correlations across the
pacific? Although we might find a few Archaean basement complex types of
correlations, which would be consistent with past configurations of
continents on a dynamic crust, where are the geological correlations just
before the Triassic/Jurassic expansion event?

The main question I have is not so much with the mass problem nor the
basement complex matchers, but more like:

Given the surface area of a proto-earth sphere(oid?) with a radius of 3820
Km, (slightly larger than the present core), what is the depth of the ocean
given 1.37X10^9 Km^3 of water?
Timberwoof, you are good with numbers, how deep the proto ocean?

A quick calculation gives about 7.4565 Km of sea water above the proto
earth's surface,(One without ocean basins).
Not only no dry land, but all life had to be aquatic in pre-Triassic. So
much for Devonian amphibians and insects, as well as Glossopteris and
horsetails http://www.ancientmicroworlds.com/ga...ossoptera.html . And
goodbye Ed Conrad's Man older than coal.
Possibly the tops of very high volcanic peaks saw daylight, but I think I'll
pass trying to prove that.
------------------

I will give you and other EE enthusiasts this: Rotational dynamics just
might play a greater role in creating recent topographical features, as well
as to contribute to the rheology of subsurface rocks and spheres. This still
needs a little work though. A migrating pole of rotation will create a
migrating equatorial bulge. A wave of topographic expansion with an
amplitude of 47 Km (27 Miles) just might give us some expansion type
effects,...No?

Guru Don, OK, there be a few questions. We can discuss possible answers if
you want to continue. I am a bit rusty in this arena, but still try to keep
active doing personal field work, though not as much as I used to. This
spring I am going to visit a field of old basaltic cones that contain
xenoliths of lherzolite and peridotite. I understand that this locality is
not too far from a few hot springs. Should be an interesting trip. Think
'retrograde metamorphism and isotopic daughters'. Will E.

"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...
The rotational dynamics of any celestial object which is in a
...
Sorry nobody ever took up on this and that stationary Earth/convention
cell mechanism still dominate as a pseudo-mechanism.
...


Here are a few references for your consideration.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../387169a0.html

Will E.

WillE1 wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...
The rotational dynamics of any celestial object which is in a
...
Sorry nobody ever took up on this and that stationary Earth/convention
cell mechanism still dominate as a pseudo-mechanism.
...


Here are a few references for your consideration.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../387169a0.html

Will E.


Rotational dynamics of the entire composition of the Earth determines
the geographical /planetary axis hence the axis cannot be considered to
have a relative motion to the surface or the planetary shape
deviation.The planetary shape deviation is a consequence of
differential rotation bands which are influenced by the composition of
the molten/plastic composition on which the surface crust rests.

There is a tendency to think of the Earth's axis as seperate to
rotational dynamics rather than presenting the axis as a consequence of
rotation and especially differential rotation in the molten
interior..One of the reasons I abandoned proposing differential
rotation as a mechanism for both planetary shape and the mechanism for
crustal motion ,at least to this geological audience,is that many
empirical concepts attribute a pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt to
explain observed phenomena or incorporate them (as that abstract does)
as a valid working principle.

I propose to take the example of differential rotation seen in the
plasma composition of the Sun and using that as a rough guide to
working with the internal dynamics of the Earth and its consequences
which surface as planetary shape deviation and geological surface
features due to crustal motion.

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/distance/str...n-rotation.gif

The example in this form may be general but it has the distinct
advantage of working with rotational dynamics while considering that
the geographical axis is a consequence of the rotation of a celestial
object rather than any seperate feature or having any influence.A
person can easily work with the rotating molten composition and the
geological/planetary consequences arising from the dynamics however the
indications are that dynamicists still wish to retain stationary
Earth/convection cells as the ad hoc solution to crustal motion with no
linkage to rotational dynamics and no linkage to the planetary shape
deviation .

Differential rotation refers to the dynamics of a molten composition
across the entire length of the rotating Earth as determining
planetary shape deviation rather than the erroneous 'dead center of
the Earth' which is traditionally used -

http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Srotfram1.htm

So,a common mechanism of differential rotation for crustal motion and
planetary shape deviation rather than ad hoc solutions for planetary
shape on one hand and another convection cell mechanism for crustal
motion on the other.The more productive mechanism is differential
rotation but there is no indication that anyone will take it up as a
working principle for the Earth's geological investigations.

"oriel36" wrote in message
ps.com...

....snip material to be discussed later, but the following I'll deal with
now:

Differential rotation refers to the dynamics of a molten composition
across the entire length of the rotating Earth as determining
planetary shape deviation rather than the erroneous 'dead center of
the Earth' which is traditionally used -

http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Srotfram1.htm

The link above had this to say about the earth's bulge.

" The bulge of the Earth's equator
Assuming the Earth is exactly spherical, we expect gravity to always
point towards the center of Earth. However, the centrifugal force is
perpendicular to the axis of the Earth. Except on the equator, therefore, it
is not exactly opposed to gravity, but adds a small horizontal vector
component, pointing towards the equator (dashed arrow in the figure). As a
result, not only is effective gravity weakened, but its direction is
modified--instead of pointing to the center of the Earth, is slants (ever so
slightly) towards the equator.

Does this mean that if you placed a perfect ball on a very smooth
horizontal surface, gravity would make it roll equatorward...? Suppose it
was so. That same force would also act on the water of the ocean and make it
flow equatorwards, and even the solid Earth might deform!

How long would this go on? Well, until the equatorial pile-up of
material forms a "hill" around the Earth, rising slightly towards the
equator, where its top would be. No more flow towards the equator would
occur once the slope of the ground, as modified by the hill, would be
exactly perpendicular to the effective direction of (modified) gravity. With
such a slope, a perfect ball placed on a perfectly horizontal surface would
no longer try to roll anywhere, and forces on oceans and on land would no
longer try to move matter horizontally. "

I can see some problems with your assumptions, (been there done that and
I
need to carefully compose a response, which may take a day or two, until
then, look up "Transform faults". Will E.

WillE1 wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message
ps.com...

...snip material to be discussed later, but the following I'll deal with
now:

Differential rotation refers to the dynamics of a molten composition
across the entire length of the rotating Earth as determining
planetary shape deviation rather than the erroneous 'dead center of
the Earth' which is traditionally used -

http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Srotfram1.htm

The link above had this to say about the earth's bulge.

Comments attached -


" The bulge of the Earth's equator
Assuming the Earth is exactly spherical, we expect gravity to always
point towards the center of Earth. However, the centrifugal force is
perpendicular to the axis of the Earth.


Except on the equator, therefore, it
is not exactly opposed to gravity, but adds a small horizontal vector
component, pointing towards the equator (dashed arrow in the figure). As a
result, not only is effective gravity weakened, but its direction is
modified--instead of pointing to the center of the Earth, is slants (ever so
slightly) towards the equator.

Does this mean that if you placed a perfect ball on a very smooth
horizontal surface, gravity would make it roll equatorward...? Suppose it
was so. That same force would also act on the water of the ocean and make it
flow equatorwards, and even the solid Earth might deform!

How long would this go on? Well, until the equatorial pile-up of
material forms a "hill" around the Earth, rising slightly towards the
equator, where its top would be. No more flow towards the equator would
occur once the slope of the ground, as modified by the hill, would be
exactly perpendicular to the effective direction of (modified) gravity. With
such a slope, a perfect ball placed on a perfectly horizontal surface would
no longer try to roll anywhere, and forces on oceans and on land would no
longer try to move matter horizontally. "

I can see some problems with your assumptions, (been there done that and
I
need to carefully compose a response, which may take a day or two, until
then, look up "Transform faults". Will E.


Before you attempt to respond,I require you to give me the basic
correlation between clocks and axial rotation in terms of minutes per
degree and the total value for 360 degrees of rotation.This spares me a
great deal of wasted responses and lets me know what your limitations
are.

"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...
...
Before you attempt to respond,I require you to give me the basic
correlation between clocks and axial rotation in terms of minutes per
degree and the total value for 360 degrees of rotation.This spares me a
great deal of wasted responses and lets me know what your limitations
are.


Give me your best shot. I can handle it. Will E.

WillE1 wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...
...
Before you attempt to respond,I require you to give me the basic
correlation between clocks and axial rotation in terms of minutes per
degree and the total value for 360 degrees of rotation.This spares me a
great deal of wasted responses and lets me know what your limitations
are.


Give me your best shot. I can handle it. Will E.

If you cannot handle a basic principle such as differential rotation in
the molten/plastic interior as the common mechanism for planetary shape
deviation and the mechanism for crustal motion then what do I care what
you think.

Here is what you do - stick with the stationary Earth/convection cell
mechanism for crustal motion where you cannot do any harm ,at least you
will not make a fool of yourself and I will not have to deal with
another pretensious idiot.

"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before you attempt to respond,I require you to give me the basic
correlation between clocks and axial rotation in terms of minutes per
degree and the total value for 360 degrees of rotation.This spares me a
great deal of wasted responses and lets me know what your limitations
are.


Give me your best shot. I can handle it. Will E.

If you cannot handle a basic principle such as differential rotation in
the molten/plastic interior as the common mechanism for planetary shape
deviation and the mechanism for crustal motion then what do I care what
you think.


Here is what you do - stick with the stationary Earth/convection cell
mechanism for crustal motion where you cannot do any harm ,at least you
will not make a fool of yourself and I will not have to deal with
another pretensious idiot.

Oriel36,
You had before you an audience. Someone who was willing to listen and to
debate your interesting ideas. You had a chance to enlighten and to teach.
But instead you chose to take the low road. A shame and a waste.

Most scientists are a little more flexible than you give them credit. But,if
your ideas do not "Fit" the current model, you have to be willing to take a
bit of heat. Here is what you do, Go back to the books, read the history of
plate tectonic theory. Learn exactly why scientists think the way they do
about observed field relationships. Sure there are problems, exceptions and
anomalies, but this is what makes the game interesting and FUN. Learn how to
play. Don't let anger spoil your passion and don't bother to respond unless
you are civil. Will E.

WillE1 wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before you attempt to respond,I require you to give me the basic
correlation between clocks and axial rotation in terms of minutes per
degree and the total value for 360 degrees of rotation.This spares me a
great deal of wasted responses and lets me know what your limitations
are.


Give me your best shot. I can handle it. Will E.

If you cannot handle a basic principle such as differential rotation in
the molten/plastic interior as the common mechanism for planetary shape
deviation and the mechanism for crustal motion then what do I care what
you think.


Here is what you do - stick with the stationary Earth/convection cell
mechanism for crustal motion where you cannot do any harm ,at least you
will not make a fool of yourself and I will not have to deal with
another pretensious idiot.

Oriel36,
You had before you an audience. Someone who was willing to listen and to
debate your interesting ideas. You had a chance to enlighten and to teach.
But instead you chose to take the low road. A shame and a waste.

The website you referenced was a sloppy and ill-conceived attempt to
refer rotational dynamics to the planetary deviation from a perfect
sphere,if your response amounts to an imperative to look up transform
faults then I assure you that I would hardly waste my time.



Most scientists are a little more flexible than you give them credit.

Most scientists could'nt make a correct correlation to save their
lives,at least in matters of astronomy,climatology,geology or anywhere
the motions of the Earth are involved.Their flexibility amounts to how
quickly they can swerve a valid point in order to support some awful
conclusion or working principle,e.g. convection cell mechanism for
crustal motion,planetary shape devaition from the 'dead' center of the
Earth.


But,if
your ideas do not "Fit" the current model, you have to be willing to take a
bit of heat.

Heat,what heat !,do you call people stuck with celestial sphere
geometry for astronomy and stationary Earth mechanisms for crustal
motion capable of generating anything worthwhile much less
oppositiion.I needed people in geology to discuss differential rotation
as a common mechanism for planetary shape and crustal motion a few
years ago and left it without the slightest trace of anger,as far as I
am concerned if it does not take hold or their are no indications that
people can grasp differential rotation in the interior Earth as a
working principle then there is little I can do about it.I am not going
to shove something down people's throats nor convince them how silly
their stationary Earth mechanism for crustal motion is but I would say
that they do insult themselves when something more productive surfaces
and they are unable to adapt.

Here is what you do, Go back to the books, read the history of
plate tectonic theory. Learn exactly why scientists think the way they do
about observed field relationships.

Differential rotation is simply a consequence of rotational dymanics of
a celestial body which has a plasma/molten/plastic composition and it
is a matter of drawing the correct correlation between the dynamic and
its consequences with regard to planetary shape and subsequently the
motion of the fractured surface crust.It fits neatly with Wegener's
correct correlation between landmass positions and their motion
relative to each other and also brings planetary shape under the same
rotational dynamic.



Sure there are problems, exceptions and
anomalies, but this is what makes the game interesting and FUN. Learn how to
play. Don't let anger spoil your passion and don't bother to respond unless
you are civil. Will E.

There are too many undisciplined peoplw whio have had 'fun' with the
once noble discipline of astronomy and likewise the same thing may
happen with geology.It has been a few years now since I proposed the
common mechanism for crustal motion and the Earth's shape and I always
presented it as a take it or leave it affair in stressing that a
mechanism is not essential to understanding the way surface features
evolve and that is the way I leave it.

There is dignity in allowing a concept to remain dormant however I see
little dignity in retaining stationary Earth concepts (convection
cells) which are only a means to an ad hoc end .Like Copernicus
remarked of those who created finely tuned concepts before he
dramitically altered the astronomical view,the same now applies to
geological conception for crustal motion -

" . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with
numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone
including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would
be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their
demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to
have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something
inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to
them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses
which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows
from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543
Copernicus

Again,I have never required anyone to grasp the rotational dynamics as
part of appreciating geology and I am not about to do it now.