Why Earth's mantle is solid

On Sep 16, 12:13 am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote:
"Andrew Usher" wrote in message

...

On Sep 10, 9:47 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote:

For me, the inductive approach is to begin with the evidence or
otherwise
relate the idea back to the evidence, no matter how remotely separated
by
deductive sections. In this case, a lava cools from the outside in...

Yes, but the scaling is quite different. A crystallising magma ocean
has
a much much higher ratio of gravitational to viscous forces, as well
as
a much longer timescale and much smaller thermal gradient, than a
cooling lava flow.

Beryllium-10 isotope studies speak to motion of the mantle relative to the
crust, and the coldness of space speaks to a net temperature gradient for
the system that can and does drive convection cells at various levels. We
directly observe convection in the atmosphere and in key ocean circulation
currents. If we assume that the hottest part is the core as it is with most
cooling bodies in natural systems, then it would not be unreasonable to
presume fluid motion is a product of convection unless there is an
explanation that is more comprehensive of the available data.

[SNIP]

This again has nothing to do with the correlation that you're
asserting
between sea level and surface temperature.

I'm not asserting a correlation. I'm asserting a *lack* of correlation.
Isostasy may drive the periods of inverse correlation, or these may simply
be random artefacts of a system with no overall correlation. However,
isostasy has been used on occasion to offer an explanation of some relative
sea level changes and I think that this makes it relevant as a competing
process when addressing claims that sea level is driven by temperature.

Global warming is not a 'catastrophist' theory, at least when properly
presented in a scientific manner.

I agree that global warming, without the obligatory catastrophe, it is not a
catastrophist theory; and it has been shown to have happened many times in
the past. However, while I don't deny these many periods of global warming
and cooling, I reject the unsupported conjecture of looming global
catastrophe, if only because periods of global warming in the past are most
commonly associated with conditions advantageous to life on Earth.

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! Conditions apply. Seewww.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Essays:http://timothycasey.info;http://spee...prehension.com
Softwahttp://fieldcraft.biz;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Technical:http://geologist-1011.com;http://web-design-1011.com

As of most recently, how close do we get to the Sirius star/solar
system every 105~110 thousand years?

~ BG

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]

As of most recently, how close do we get to the Sirius star/solar
system every 105~110 thousand years?

~ BG

Thank you - That is an interesting point. With respect to:
http://www.geocities.com/bradguth/gv-sirius-trek.htm
I think we also have our own track to consider and this might make the math
a little more complex. Historically, extinction rates generally don't reach
9 families per million years until the global mean temperature falls through
19 degrees Celcius, which is usually very close to where extinction peaks. I
get this by comparing data from:

Futuyma, D. J., 1998, Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Ass.
&
Royer, D. L., Berner, R. A., Montañez, I. P., Tabor, N. J., Beerling, D. J.,
2004, "CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate", GSA Today, v. 14,
pp.4-10, ISSN: 1052-5173

Whereas an interesting point regarding CO2 correlation with cosmic radiation
is made by:

Shaviv, N., Veizer, J., 2004, "CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic
climate: COMMENT", GSA Today, Published online: June 2004,
http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/...2-5173-14-3-e4

However, I've put a chart up at http://climate.geologist-1011.net so people
can compare for themselves.

What would prove interesting is if we could identify the enough of the
cycles to come up with some useful climate predictions. Have you seen any of
David Archibald's work? I think he has some interesting ideas...

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! Conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Essays: http://timothycasey.info; http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Softwa http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Technical: http://geologist-1011.com; http://web-design-1011.com

"Andrew Usher" wrote in message
...
You respond to everything constructive by changing the subject and/or
emitting random nonsense. I'm not wasting my time on you.

Andrew Usher

You see, this is what I was getting at before. This sort of response really
adds nothing to the discussion.

Now, in message u...
I returned to fluid behaviour of the mantle writing:

Beryllium-10 isotope studies speak to motion of the mantle relative to the
crust, and the coldness of space speaks to a net temperature gradient for
the system that can and does drive convection cells at various levels. We
directly observe convection in the atmosphere and in key ocean circulation
currents. If we assume that the hottest part is the core as it is with
most
cooling bodies in natural systems, then it would not be unreasonable to
presume fluid motion is a product of convection unless there is an
explanation that is more comprehensive of the available data.

By way of explanation, Beryllium 10 is a cosmogenic radionuclide, and exists
only as a product of cosmic radiation and has a half life of 1,500,000
years; decaying by beta emission to Boron 10. As such, Beryllium 10 as it
occurs in igneous rocks must be originally sourced from the earth's surface.
Outside of xenoliths or enclaves in the magma, the presence of Beryllium 10
has only one other explanation: that of being deposited in ocean basin
sediments that are subsequently subducted, mixed, and transported laterally
in the mantle to the point where the Beryllium 10 bearing magma is
subsequently erupted. Perhaps Wilson (1993, p.31) explains this more clearly
than I do.

Certainly, Part I (the first four chapters) of Wilson (1993) examines the
mantle dynamics models from the perspective of compositional constraints and
compositional data. There is also plenty of material on convective
fractionation whereby magmas become vertically stratified with respect to
density, composition and temperature (Sparks et. al. 1984) - with convection
usually occurring within each layer. This has implications with respect to
mantle processes.

Those references:

Sparks, R. S. J., Huppert, H. E., & Turner, J. S., 1984, "The Fluid Dynamics
of Evolving Magma Chambers." Phil. Trans. Royal Society of London, Volume
A310, pp. 511-534

Wilson, M., 1993, "Igneous Petrogenesis", Chapman & Hall, ISBN:
0-412-53310-3

Enjoy!

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! Conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Essays: http://timothycasey.info; http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Softwa http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Technical: http://geologist-1011.com; http://web-design-1011.com

On Sep 17, 3:08 am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote:
"Andrew Usher" wrote in message

...

You respond to everything constructive by changing the subject and/or
emitting random nonsense. I'm not wasting my time on you.

You see, this is what I was getting at before. This sort of response really
adds nothing to the discussion.

Your responses were adding nothing to the discussion. That's my
point. Now, you've said something interesting, so I will reply.

Beryllium-10 isotope studies speak to motion of the mantle relative to the
crust, and the coldness of space speaks to a net temperature gradient for
the system that can and does drive convection cells at various levels. We
directly observe convection in the atmosphere and in key ocean circulation
currents. If we assume that the hottest part is the core as it is with
most
cooling bodies in natural systems, then it would not be unreasonable to
presume fluid motion is a product of convection unless there is an
explanation that is more comprehensive of the available data.

By way of explanation, Beryllium 10 is a cosmogenic radionuclide, and exists
only as a product of cosmic radiation and has a half life of 1,500,000
years; decaying by beta emission to Boron 10. As such, Beryllium 10 as it
occurs in igneous rocks must be originally sourced from the earth's surface.
Outside of xenoliths or enclaves in the magma, the presence of Beryllium 10
has only one other explanation: that of being deposited in ocean basin
sediments that are subsequently subducted, mixed, and transported laterally
in the mantle to the point where the Beryllium 10 bearing magma is
subsequently erupted. Perhaps Wilson (1993, p.31) explains this more clearly
than I do.

This is correct, although you should have explained the first time
what you were getting at. Anyway, this only proves that the mantle
does convect, which wasn't the issue.

Certainly, Part I (the first four chapters) of Wilson (1993) examines the
mantle dynamics models from the perspective of compositional constraints and
compositional data. There is also plenty of material on convective
fractionation whereby magmas become vertically stratified with respect to
density, composition and temperature (Sparks et. al. 1984) - with convection
usually occurring within each layer. This has implications with respect to
mantle processes.

I will try to access these.

Andrew Usher

On Sep 10, 7:10*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Andrew Usher wrote:
On Sep 10, 4:10 pm, John Curtis wrote:

Below an ocean depth of 3 km, crust (basalt) *formation declines.
It is replaced by formation of mantle (dunite) *composed
primarily of olivine (peridot).

For one thing, the mantle does not contain elemental silicon.
That invalidates your 'theory' already.
Andrew Usher

* *Correct--
* * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_...haracteristics

Some elements in Earth's interior exist in their primordial forms:
http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/staff/wjj/geol/geol.html
Most of primordial compounds FeH, MgH (sunspots),
CrH, CaH (L-dwarfs), CH4, H2S, NH3, PH3, GeH4,
AsH3 (Jupiter) decompose in the presence of water or oxygen.
Patterns of solubility and reactivity point to SiH4 (silane)
as the suspect in the formation of crust and mantle,
although its (silane's) detection has been limited to
circumstellar envelopes of IRC+10216 and VY Canis Majoris
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/317127
John Curtis

On Sep 19, 10:44 am, John Curtis wrote:

Some elements in Earth's interior exist in their primordial forms:http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/staff/wjj/geol/geol.html

This doesn't prove anything. Helium is not reactive; silicon is.

Most of primordial compounds FeH, MgH (sunspots),
CrH, CaH (L-dwarfs), CH4, H2S, NH3, PH3, GeH4,
AsH3 (Jupiter) decompose in the presence of water or oxygen.

Yes.

Patterns of solubility and reactivity point to SiH4 (silane)
as the suspect in the formation of crust and mantle,

Evidence?

I don't believe silane ever existed on planet Earth or indeed on
any planet in the universe. It's certainly not necessary to
explain the crust and mantle (which have entirely oxidised
silicon).

Andrew Usher

"Andrew Usher" wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 3:08 am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote:
"Andrew Usher" wrote in message

...

You respond to everything constructive by changing the subject and/or
emitting random nonsense. I'm not wasting my time on you.

You see, this is what I was getting at before. This sort of response
really
adds nothing to the discussion.

Your responses were adding nothing to the discussion. That's my
point. Now, you've said something interesting, so I will reply.

Beryllium-10 isotope studies speak to motion of the mantle relative to
the
crust, and the coldness of space speaks to a net temperature gradient
for
the system that can and does drive convection cells at various levels.
We
directly observe convection in the atmosphere and in key ocean
circulation
currents. If we assume that the hottest part is the core as it is with
most
cooling bodies in natural systems, then it would not be unreasonable
to
presume fluid motion is a product of convection unless there is an
explanation that is more comprehensive of the available data.

By way of explanation, Beryllium 10 is a cosmogenic radionuclide, and
exists
only as a product of cosmic radiation and has a half life of 1,500,000
years; decaying by beta emission to Boron 10. As such, Beryllium 10 as
it
occurs in igneous rocks must be originally sourced from the earth's
surface.
Outside of xenoliths or enclaves in the magma, the presence of Beryllium
10
has only one other explanation: that of being deposited in ocean basin
sediments that are subsequently subducted, mixed, and transported
laterally
in the mantle to the point where the Beryllium 10 bearing magma is
subsequently erupted. Perhaps Wilson (1993, p.31) explains this more
clearly
than I do.

This is correct, although you should have explained the first time
what you were getting at. Anyway, this only proves that the mantle
does convect, which wasn't the issue.
[SNIP]

True enough, but there is just one little question this raises to the
original issue:
If the mantle convects, how can it be completely solid?

=~=
Timothy Casey GPEMC! Conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Essays: http://timothycasey.info; http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Softwa http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Technical: http://geologist-1011.com; http://web-design-1011.com

On Sep 20, 2:21*am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote:
"Andrew Usher" wrote in message

...



On Sep 17, 3:08 am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote:
"Andrew Usher" wrote in message

....

You respond to everything constructive by changing the subject and/or
emitting random nonsense. I'm not wasting my time on you.

You see, this is what I was getting at before. This sort of response
really
adds nothing to the discussion.

Your responses were adding nothing to the discussion. That's my
point. Now, you've said something interesting, so I will reply.

Beryllium-10 isotope studies speak to motion of the mantle relative to
the
crust, and the coldness of space speaks to a net temperature gradient
for
the system that can and does drive convection cells at various levels.
We
directly observe convection in the atmosphere and in key ocean
circulation
currents. If we assume that the hottest part is the core as it is with
most
cooling bodies in natural systems, then it would not be unreasonable
to
presume fluid motion is a product of convection unless there is an
explanation that is more comprehensive of the available data.

By way of explanation, Beryllium 10 is a cosmogenic radionuclide, and
exists
only as a product of cosmic radiation and has a half life of 1,500,000
years; decaying by beta emission to Boron 10. As such, Beryllium 10 as
it
occurs in igneous rocks must be originally sourced from the earth's
surface.
Outside of xenoliths or enclaves in the magma, the presence of Beryllium
10
has only one other explanation: that of being deposited in ocean basin
sediments that are subsequently subducted, mixed, and transported
laterally
in the mantle to the point where the Beryllium 10 bearing magma is
subsequently erupted. Perhaps Wilson (1993, p.31) explains this more
clearly
than I do.

This is correct, although you should have explained the first time
what you were getting at. Anyway, this only proves that the mantle
does convect, which wasn't the issue.

[SNIP]

True enough, but there is just one little question this raises to the
original issue:
If the mantle convects, how can it be completely solid?

=~=
Timothy Casey GPEMC! Conditions apply. Seewww.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Essays:http://timothycasey.info;http://spee...prehension.com
Softwahttp://fieldcraft.biz;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Technical:http://geologist-1011.com;http://web-design-1011.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear,oh dear,oh dear.The convection cell belief is basically a
stationary Earth notion which can join a solid or hollow interior at
roughly the same intellectual level.

Maybe it is too much to ask people to bridge a conceptual leap
between rotational geodynamics and crustal dynamics and evolution but
when it comes to that,perhaps the whole thing is finished anyway.Go
enjoy your 'convection cells' and be proud of it.

On Sep 19, 7:21 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote:

True enough, but there is just one little question this raises to the
original issue:
If the mantle convects, how can it be completely solid?

Solids DO flow under sufficient pressure, such as exists within the
mantle. Think of a glacier, made of solid H2O (yes, there are glaciers
entirely below freezing).

The mantle does contain some liquid (near the top and bottom),
but it's not necessary for convection to happen.

Andrew Usher

"Andrew Usher" wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 7:21 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote:

True enough, but there is just one little question this raises to the
original issue:
If the mantle convects, how can it be completely solid?

Solids DO flow under sufficient pressure, such as exists within the
mantle. Think of a glacier, made of solid H2O (yes, there are glaciers
entirely below freezing).

The mantle does contain some liquid (near the top and bottom),
but it's not necessary for convection to happen.

Andrew Usher

Yet the expenditure of energy is nonetheless infered by relative motion
against what must be tremendous frictional force, no?

What do you think is/are the source(s) of this energy?


__________________________________________________ __________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Softwa http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!