questions for the bored.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message .com, don
findlay writes

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message . com, don
findlay writes

http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tck/lingo1.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tck/dogli.html
Everybody else seems to be lagging behind these two maverick heretics.
Who has it right? Overriding is not subduction, ..is it?

Isn't it? No, I don't see the distinction.

Another way of looking at it is that the mechanics of 'subduction'
belong to the crust (well, the lithosphere), not the mantle. The
lithosphere (down to about 800km) is broken. The earthquakes (down to
the same) reflect that break, and have nothing to do with mantle
dynamics in the way Plate Tectonics says. They're pulling themselves.
Pushing and pulling.

NUMBER 23

So what drives convection then? ...(in the case of the Earth)..
Density? Or heat?

Subducting slabs that are cold belong in the 'cold' domain - the
Earth's surface, and can't sink on that account. If we say that they
do sink (because they are heavier, then how is that different from the
'Titanic' sinking and driving convection in the pond? Once it sinks,
it sinks. It doesn't rise , phoenix-like, again. Now does it?

And if we say that radiogenic heat drives it then there are more hot
'corpuscles' on the outside of any shell than the inside:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ng/corpuscles.html

And if we say it is residual heat from planetary collision in 'the
beginning' - as in 'creationism', then there is even more explaining
to do regarding the making of crust and its breakup - hierarchy of
scale of cause-and-effect/ laws of thermodynamics and all that.

And if we say that ridge-push - slab-pull is doing the driving (of
convection) since when can 'pull' feedback create positive 'push' -
Again a contradiction to physical laws?


So? Where does that leave the mechanism for Plate Tectonics? Not
even as well-off as Earth Expansion, surely. At least in Earth
Expansion there is a mechanism of sorts in Moon Capture/ collision if
we want to use it - in the input of a whole lot of energy that could
blow the Planet to Kingdom Come, once it's fully 'incubated'. In
fact whatever it is that's happening, it seems to be doing a passably
good job of that already:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/memory.html
By comparison Plate Tectonics has nothing beyond assumptions.
Junk Science.

Still waiting for an expert on hot mantle buoyancy to explain something
about it. I don't know what the answer is. I'm just asking the
questions that would occur to anyone when confronted with obvious
contradictions. Surely there are some answers around that make a fool
of the 'argument' above?

don findlay wrote:
NUMBER 23

So what drives convection then?

Opacity to radiation.

Sam Wormley wrote:
don findlay wrote:
NUMBER 23

So what drives convection then?

Opacity to radiation.

(The question was, "in relation to the Earth")
...So, ...opacity to radiation at the TOP? or the BOTTOM? (of the
'shell')
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ng/corpuscles.html

don findlay wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

don findlay wrote:

NUMBER 23

So what drives convection then?

Opacity to radiation.


(The question was, "in relation to the Earth")
..So, ...opacity to radiation at the TOP? or the BOTTOM? (of the
'shell')
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ng/corpuscles.html


Convection in the Earth's mantle is driven by cooling from the surface.

Mantle Convection
http://www.mantleplumes.org/Convection.html

Sam Wormley wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

don findlay wrote:

NUMBER 23

So what drives convection then?

Opacity to radiation.


(The question was, "in relation to the Earth")
..So, ...opacity to radiation at the TOP? or the BOTTOM? (of the
'shell')
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ng/corpuscles.html


Convection in the Earth's mantle is driven by cooling from the surface.

Mantle Convection
http://www.mantleplumes.org/Convection.html



Yes, I cite a bit from that link on my 'pustules' page (maybe you
noticed), ..and I know that's what's *supposed* to drive convection,
but it's really stretching credibility, so I was asking if people with
a physics background would regard that as reasonable,

I mean, .. "DRIVEN"/ *DRIVES* ? I would have thought you'd need heat
somewhere along the cycle, at the bottom -so that density and gravity
mean something. No? Otherwise everything would just end up on the
mantle floor, ..cold, ...would it not? With a once-only 'sinkage'.
Convection means repeated cycling, does it not? (A roiling boil driven
by 'gas-in-the-stove'.) When *Heat* would surely be the driver...?

If it's *driven* by cooling, and it's cooling curves (shrinkage) that
define the age dates of the ocean floors (mostly) does that not mean
plate Tectonics is driven by shrinking (cooling meaning shrinking)? -
and therefore it's the Earth *shrinking* that drives Plate Tectonics?

The old Shrinking Earth theory? Is that what Plate Tectonics is, just
in disguise? The shrinking skin drives tectonics? Mountains get built
by the skin shrinking. India gets scrunched under the Himalayas to
thicken the crust up? The skin shrinking, ..like a navel with lemon
juice poured in it - if you know what I mean?

This doesn't look good, Sam. I mean from a physics point of view.
But wait, ...shrinking would pull India down a bit to a level where
hardly any shove would be needed to drive it under Asia, ... so that
could figger, (..I guess). Subduction wouldn't then get in the way
the way it does now with the need to push india down, ...and the
question then would become which might have the greatest 'shrinking'
coefficient, ..the crust or the mantle, ...(so we could plug in some
numbers) and this would mean that the one most 'negatively shrinkable'
would stand 'higher' and therefore would be forced eventually to
collapse, thus explaining overthrusts?

Hmmm, ..this is surely not a new theory when explicitly stated, though
it is implicit (I grant you), in the "cooling-drives-PT" model - which
is the respectable one around at the present time (since conveyor belts
went for a Burton.), and I can personally bear witness to the fact that
Africa is
shrinking.http://users.indigo.net.au.don/nonsense/cornflakes.html

Are we really on track then, with this shrinking? It sounds a bit
suss to me, .. Maybe if I call it "cooling" - "driven by cooling"
rather than driven by shrinking, ..what do you think? Can the ocean
floor shrink without getting colder? Can it get colder without
shrinking?

(Density/ cooling? ..or density/heating? )
(Don't forget the acne problem either, ...with all the pustules being
on the outside.

It's not easy, is it, .. well, for me at least, ..trying to understand
the physics of buoyancy, ...density, ..heat. (and cooling). (in
relation to the Earth's structure, I mean.) That's why I wondered what
others thought. Stuart, our resident guru about convection over here
in sci.geo.geology also says Plate Tectonics is driven by cooling, and
cites hot air balloons and porridge (and soup). Cooling's all very
well, but how does a hot air balloon rise again when there is no heat
driving it. I thought when it runs out of gas it stays on the ground.
Just falling's not good enough to be called convection is it? It has
to rise again, and again...

don findlay wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

don findlay wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:


don findlay wrote:


NUMBER 23

So what drives convection then?

Opacity to radiation.


(The question was, "in relation to the Earth")
..So, ...opacity to radiation at the TOP? or the BOTTOM? (of the
'shell')
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ng/corpuscles.html



Convection in the Earth's mantle is driven by cooling from the surface.

Mantle Convection
http://www.mantleplumes.org/Convection.html




Yes, I cite a bit from that link on my 'pustules' page (maybe you
noticed), ..and I know that's what's *supposed* to drive convection,
but it's really stretching credibility, so I was asking if people with
a physics background would regard that as reasonable,

I mean, .. "DRIVEN"/ *DRIVES* ? I would have thought you'd need heat
somewhere along the cycle, at the bottom -so that density and gravity
mean something. No? Otherwise everything would just end up on the
mantle floor, ..cold, ...would it not? With a once-only 'sinkage'.
Convection means repeated cycling, does it not? (A roiling boil driven
by 'gas-in-the-stove'.) When *Heat* would surely be the driver...?

If it's *driven* by cooling, and it's cooling curves (shrinkage) that
define the age dates of the ocean floors (mostly) does that not mean
plate Tectonics is driven by shrinking (cooling meaning shrinking)? -
and therefore it's the Earth *shrinking* that drives Plate Tectonics?

The old Shrinking Earth theory? Is that what Plate Tectonics is, just
in disguise? The shrinking skin drives tectonics? Mountains get built
by the skin shrinking. India gets scrunched under the Himalayas to
thicken the crust up? The skin shrinking, ..like a navel with lemon
juice poured in it - if you know what I mean?

This doesn't look good, Sam. I mean from a physics point of view.
But wait, ...shrinking would pull India down a bit to a level where
hardly any shove would be needed to drive it under Asia, ... so that
could figger, (..I guess). Subduction wouldn't then get in the way
the way it does now with the need to push india down, ...and the
question then would become which might have the greatest 'shrinking'
coefficient, ..the crust or the mantle, ...(so we could plug in some
numbers) and this would mean that the one most 'negatively shrinkable'
would stand 'higher' and therefore would be forced eventually to
collapse, thus explaining overthrusts?

Hmmm, ..this is surely not a new theory when explicitly stated, though
it is implicit (I grant you), in the "cooling-drives-PT" model - which
is the respectable one around at the present time (since conveyor belts
went for a Burton.), and I can personally bear witness to the fact that
Africa is
shrinking.http://users.indigo.net.au.don/nonsense/cornflakes.html

Are we really on track then, with this shrinking? It sounds a bit
suss to me, .. Maybe if I call it "cooling" - "driven by cooling"
rather than driven by shrinking, ..what do you think? Can the ocean
floor shrink without getting colder? Can it get colder without
shrinking?

(Density/ cooling? ..or density/heating? )
(Don't forget the acne problem either, ...with all the pustules being
on the outside.

It's not easy, is it, .. well, for me at least, ..trying to understand
the physics of buoyancy, ...density, ..heat. (and cooling). (in
relation to the Earth's structure, I mean.) That's why I wondered what
others thought. Stuart, our resident guru about convection over here
in sci.geo.geology also says Plate Tectonics is driven by cooling, and
cites hot air balloons and porridge (and soup). Cooling's all very
well, but how does a hot air balloon rise again when there is no heat
driving it. I thought when it runs out of gas it stays on the ground.
Just falling's not good enough to be called convection is it? It has
to rise again, and again...


Convection is driven by differential temperature. The interior of
the earth has a continuous heat source--radioactivity. Cooling from
the surface is an excellent mechanism for differential temperature.

NUMBER 24

Does anyone have an answer to why the hump of Africa - the big round
bit that pokes out westwards around the Sahara and West Africa
generally, ..why there is the shape of it? And why the hump on the
American side of the dislocation - from Nova Scotia all the way to the
eastern corner of South America - is about three times its size? And
why the spreading ridge in-between Africa and America is not curved,
but is essentially linear, with the 'curve-apparent' aggregate shape
being given by straight, latitudinal offsets. ..But neither the
African nor North American coast-fits are offset by transforms.

So what's going on? What's the continental curve of 'African Hump'
all about?

And why is its contour closer to that of the Andes, than it is to the
east coast of South America? Does Plate Tectonics have an answer to
that one? Or to the even bigger curvature-similarlity to the Western
Pacific/ Indonesia/ Australasian margin?

Dear don findlay:

"don findlay" wrote in message
ups.com...
....
I mean, .. "DRIVEN"/ *DRIVES* ? I would have thought
you'd need heat somewhere along the cycle, at the
bottom -so that density and gravity mean something.
No?

Yes. "Rock" is oen of those substances that is less dense as a
solid.

Otherwise everything would just end up on the
mantle floor, ..cold, ...would it not?

No. There are convection currents in a coffee cup, and heat is
still the driver.

With a once-only 'sinkage'. Convection means
repeated cycling, does it not? (A roiling boil
driven by 'gas-in-the-stove'.) When *Heat*
would surely be the driver...?

Coffee cup.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear don findlay:

"don findlay" wrote in message
ups.com...
...
I mean, .. "DRIVEN"/ *DRIVES* ? I would have thought
you'd need heat somewhere along the cycle, at the
bottom -so that density and gravity mean something.
No?

Yes. "Rock" is oen of those substances that is less dense as a
solid.

Otherwise everything would just end up on the
mantle floor, ..cold, ...would it not?

No. There are convection currents in a coffee cup, and heat is
still the driver.

With a once-only 'sinkage'. Convection means
repeated cycling, does it not? (A roiling boil
driven by 'gas-in-the-stove'.) When *Heat*
would surely be the driver...?

Coffee cup.


Oh, come come. Do you make your coffee with milk? And does it get a
skin (crust) when it cools?

The question is, what physics of convection is it that then breaks up
the skin?


David A. Smith