|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot (was Why Earth's mantle is solid)
"oriel36" wrote in message
... [SNIP] So, where does the energy that drives observed plate motion against substantial mantle friction come from, and what evidence do we have other than plate motion, for the expenditure of that energy (IE specific to source: eg. rotational deceleration, orbital deceleration, orbital decay, etc.)...? -- __________________________________________________ __________ 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! |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot
On Sep 20, 11:04*pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote: "oriel36" wrote in message ... [SNIP] So, where does the energy that drives observed plate motion against substantial mantle friction come from, and what evidence do we have other than plate motion, for the expenditure of that energy (IE specific to source: eg. rotational deceleration, orbital deceleration, orbital decay, etc.)...? My dear man,nobody kept an eye on planetary shape when discussing the Earth's interior and I most certainly am not going to remind people who are supposed to be doing their jobs that differential rotation is an observed generalised rule for rotating compositions in a viscous state.How the Earth and its 40 km spherical deviation is going to remain exempt from rotational dynamics and the specifics of that dynamic is anyone's guess but arguing with people who are fully intent in ignoring a rotating Earth would not be my idea of enjoyment. Again,be proud of your stationary Earth 'convection cell; ' mechanism and all the vocabulary surrounding it. -- __________________________________________________ __________ Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the to email. Philosophical Essays:http://timothycasey.info Speed Reading:http://speed-reading-comprehension.com Softwahttp://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. Seewww.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! |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot
On Sep 21, 12:51*am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote: "oriel36" wrote in message ... On Sep 20, 11:04 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!" wrote: "oriel36" wrote in message .... [SNIP] So, where does the energy that drives observed plate motion against substantial mantle friction come from, and what evidence do we have other than plate motion, for the expenditure of that energy (IE specific to source: eg. rotational deceleration, orbital deceleration, orbital decay, etc.)...? "My dear man,nobody kept an eye on planetary shape when discussing the Earth's interior and I most certainly am not going to remind people who are supposed to be doing their jobs that differential rotation is an observed generalised rule for rotating compositions in a viscous state.How the Earth and its 40 km spherical deviation is going to remain exempt from rotational dynamics and the specifics of that dynamic is anyone's guess but arguing with people who are fully intent in ignoring a rotating Earth would not be my idea of enjoyment." [SNIP] No-one is ignoring a rotating earth, nor the "oblate spheroid" shape. If you don't present your case, and you don't present solid verifiable substantiative evidence, how can you expect anyone to adopt your conclusion? No offence,but I am under no onus to prove anything nor do I care whether you or anyone else can appreciate fluid dynamics of a rotating viscous interior.Once I hear Coriolis mentioned I know that I do not have the attention of genuine or competent individuals,that is not a slight on you,just something I know from experience.When the guys look at sphericity and differential rotation via stellar dynamics and then apply the same generalised principles of fluid dynamics to the Earth , it may be possible to move on to surface correlations but without the acknowledgement of the specifics of rotational dynamics as regards to the spherical deviation I would be wasting my time. I do not get any satisfaction from pointing out that the rotating Earth and viscous interior has geological consequences to people who are absolutely intent in ignoring it or throwing worthless vocabularistic voodoo back at me as some excuse for a response. Convection by an internal heat source confirmed in both parts by geological activity, is further confirmed by differential motion of plates and confluent motion of mantle material relative to plate motion as confirmed by Beryllium 10 isotope studies (Wilson, 1993). IE convergences and divergences of surface features of a system such as plates are most effectively explained by convection, especially when material is known to flow under the plates confluently. Convection cells require no association with planetary shape and rotation and that leaves nothing to discuss,at least for me.When genuine people who are serious about their jobs start to see the possibilities afforded by organising the viscous interior around a rotational dynamic and then link planetary shape with crustal motion/ evolution then points can be argued over but not before then. GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. Seewww.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! |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot
Number Eleven - GPEMC! wrote: "oriel36" wrote in message ... [SNIP] So, where does the energy that drives observed plate motion against substantial mantle friction come from, and what evidence do we have other than plate motion, for the expenditure of that energy (IE specific to source: eg. rotational deceleration, orbital deceleration, orbital decay, etc.)...? Plate Tectonics says that the continental lithosphere.forces the oceanic lithosphere down. Then once it's going down the engine of Plate Tectonics is set in motion. Without "forcing down" subduction wouldn't happen, and since Plate Tectonics is driven by subduction you could say that it really is driven by this 'forcing down'. http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonse...#forced%20down So to answer your question the energy comes from the crust doing nothing except sitting there minding its own business. -- __________________________________________________ __________ 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! |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot
Number Eleven - GPEMC! wrote: "oriel36" wrote in message ... On Sep 20, 11:04 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!" wrote: "oriel36" wrote in message ... [SNIP] So, where does the energy that drives observed plate motion against substantial mantle friction come from, and what evidence do we have other than plate motion, for the expenditure of that energy (IE specific to source: eg. rotational deceleration, orbital deceleration, orbital decay, etc.)...? "My dear man,nobody kept an eye on planetary shape when discussing the Earth's interior and I most certainly am not going to remind people who are supposed to be doing their jobs that differential rotation is an observed generalised rule for rotating compositions in a viscous state.How the Earth and its 40 km spherical deviation is going to remain exempt from rotational dynamics and the specifics of that dynamic is anyone's guess but arguing with people who are fully intent in ignoring a rotating Earth would not be my idea of enjoyment." [SNIP] No-one is ignoring a rotating earth, nor the "oblate spheroid" shape. You might not be, but Plate Tectonics is. Both are irrelevant to the mechanism of Plate Tectonics. If you don't present your case, and you don't present solid verifiable substantiative evidence, how can you expect anyone to adopt your conclusion? Convection by an internal heat source confirmed in both parts by geological activity, is further confirmed by differential motion of plates and confluent motion of mantle material relative to plate motion as confirmed by Beryllium 10 isotope studies (Wilson, 1993). IE convergences and divergences of surface features of a system such as plates are most effectively explained by convection, especially when material is known to flow under the plates confluently. You're behind the times in the most recent shift in the goalposts of Plate Tectonics. Plate Tectonics is now considered to be driven by subduction, i.e., not convection driven by motion from the inside, but from the motion of the outside of the lithospheric shell. http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonse...ils.html#uyeda Rotational artefacts such as the Coriolus effect manifest themselves in rotational subsystems whose axes of rotation are roughly perpendicular to the earth's surface, such as cyclones and anti-cyclones. However, vertical atmospheric motion is mostly heat driven; by convection. The rupture of the crust and the emplacement of the Pacific is entirely described by the swivelling open of the continents in the Pacific region ('coriolis' effect in the lithosphere) http://users.indigo.net.au/don The big problem for Plate Tectonics is that the same structures that describe this also describe the growth of the planet. The fact that rotation of plates about axes roughly perpendicular to the earth's surface is far smaller, if at all measurable, than the differential motion of the plates as characterised by convergence and divergence; can be explained by the presence of both greater friction (due to higher viscosity) and greater heat. Exactly. Friction and heat and what Plate Tectonics is all about. The shape of the planet and the fact that it is spinning is irrelevant. It has been said here that compared to the power of convection the heat generated by the Earth's rotation (/differential rotation) is point twenty nine zeros of insignificance. However, with respect to plate motion, Coriolus rotations if observable, still can neither explain the measurable system of convergent and divergent plate boundaries that are observed nor the confluent motion of mantle material relative to plate motion as confirmed by Beryllium 10 isotope studies (Wilson, 1993). The Coriolus effect may on the other hand, contribute to the motion and alteration of convection cells themselves, but I suspect the available evidence may be a little thin for this level of conjectural detail to be considered scientific. The entire global structure of the planet describes rotational (and growth) dynamics. (Ignored in plate Tectonics.) This is an invitation to shower us all with relevant references from the peer-reviewed literature showing just how much data really is available to support your conclusions. If you've done it all before, it's only a CTRL+C, CTRL+V sequence away - so much easier than typing it all out from scratch. Forget Peer Review. After half a century up a backwater based on convenient assumptions and dodgy arithmetic it needs dragging into the present by the short and curlies. People can begin with the simple logic, which says that if subduction operates, then Plate Tectonics cannot happen:- http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subfar.html Delete the link back to the *nonsense/ page for an index to the rubbish of Plate Tectonics. (You're falling in the trap of thinking that a billion Chinese can't be wong.) Recommended reading: Wilson, M., 1993, "Igneous Petrogenesis", Chapman & Hall, ISBN: 0-412-53310-3 __________________________________________________ __________ 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! |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot
On Sep 21, 1:51*am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote: This is an invitation to shower us all with relevant references from the peer-reviewed literature showing just how much data really is available to support your conclusions. If you've done it all before, it's only a CTRL+C, CTRL+V sequence away - so much easier than typing it all out from scratch.. Recommended reading: Wilson, M., 1993, "Igneous Petrogenesis", Chapman & Hall, ISBN: 0-412-53310-3 __________________________________________________ __________ Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the to email. I do not complain that rotational dynamics is not a subject of discussion in respect to the continuing evolution of crustal geology and surface consequences of that motion,as far as I am concerned,work can go on without being particularly concerned about the internal mechanism,at least up to a point.The problem is that the 'established idea of 'convection cells' and the organisation of interior composition to suit that idea is creating more difficulties than it solves,the crustal evolution off the mid Atlantic ridge being a clear indication of a rotational component. I can forego the usual complaints of peer review,if a person is not up to appreciating rotational dynamics or wishes to remain at their level of understanding there is no reason to argue against this self- moderation imposed on rotational dynamics of the viscous interior.I can give you a broad view of what happens when people cannot alter their position from stationary Earth concepts such as Galileo's observations on those who operate at a lower intellectual and intutive level - SALV. "The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside themselves with passion, some of them would not be backward even about scheming to suppress and silence their adversaries. I have had some experience of this myself. SAGR. I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo Rotational dynamics is a working principle which links planetary shape with crustal motion under a common differential rotation dynamic,most already know it whether they now accept it or not is another matter and out of my control. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
THE BAILOUT
The (initial) $700 billion Wall Street bailout (in addition to the
~$200 billion already "loaned"), http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/20/treasurys-financial-bailout-proposal-to-congress/ "Decisions by the Secretary [of the Treasury] pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." "Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000." US GDP 2007 = $13.84 trillion http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/overview.html Budget of the United States Government, FY 2007 "For 2007, the Budget forecasts a decline in the deficit to 2.6 percent of GDP, or $354 billion." It's always a good time to buy ammo. Oh yeah... the US regime has dusted off draconian laws to interfere with stock trading. http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/sec12.html For example, the SEC claims that it has legal authority to ban people from shorting financial stocks "pursuant to its authority in Section 12(k)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934", to quote their press release. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot
On Sep 20, 2:56 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote: 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. 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? Energy is conserved. Convective motion turns heat into mechanical motion, and frictional/viscous forces turn it back to heat; none is lost except through the surface. Andrew Usher |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot
On Sep 21, 9:40*am, oriel36 wrote:
I do not complain that rotational dynamics is not a subject of discussion in respect to the continuing evolution of crustal geology and surface consequences of that motion,as far as I am concerned,work can go on without being particularly concerned about the internal mechanism,at least up to a point.The problem is that the 'established idea of 'convection cells' and the organisation of interior composition to suit that idea is creating more difficulties than it solves,the crustal evolution off the mid Atlantic ridge being a clear indication of a rotational component. It is only a coincidence of our lifetime that it has N/S average strike. You need to study up on past ridges . At one time all the continents were clustered around the S Pole . Obviously , rotation couldn't cause that . Nor would it subsequently cause the E/W ridges needed to explain their migration away from the pole. I can forego the usual complaints of peer review,if a person is not up to appreciating rotational dynamics or wishes to remain at their level of understanding there is no reason to argue against this self- moderation imposed on rotational dynamics of the viscous interior.I can give you a broad view of what happens when people cannot alter their position from stationary Earth concepts such as Galileo's observations on those who *operate at a lower intellectual and intutive level - Your entire problem stems from your lack of knowledge of the past. There are the remains of ancient continental collisions all over the globe and they show no bias as relates to planetary rotation. Rotational dynamics is a working principle *which links planetary shape with crustal motion under a common differential rotation..... No , it isn't ! Brad |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot
On Sep 22, 8:08*pm, brad wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:40*am, oriel36 wrote: I do not complain that rotational dynamics is not a subject of discussion in respect to the continuing evolution of crustal geology and surface consequences of that motion,as far as I am concerned,work can go on without being particularly concerned about the internal mechanism,at least up to a point.The problem is that the 'established idea of 'convection cells' and the organisation of interior composition to suit that idea is creating more difficulties than it solves,the crustal evolution off the mid Atlantic ridge being a clear indication of a rotational component. It is only a coincidence of our lifetime that it has *N/S average strike. I am sorry your reasoning capabilities and those of your colleagues can only extend to orientation when I have explicitly stated that generation of oceanic crust of the Mid Atlantic ridge indicates a global rotational component.If you can explain the development of crust off the ridge with a stationary Earth 'convection cell' then good for you but I do not want to hear it. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif You need to study up on past ridges . At one time all the continents were clustered around the S Pole . Obviously , rotation couldn't cause that . Nor would it subsequently cause the E/W ridges needed to explain their migration away from the pole. You are really better suited to 'convection cells' level of thinking and I congratulate you in your defence of that non rotational mechanism,as you have the ear of everyone else here you can leave me to enjoy this notion that rotational dynamics have geological consequences and the specifics which link planetary shape and crustal evolution using a common mechanism which is observed in other celestial objects with viscous compositions.Notwithstanding the 40 km deviation and the second largest geological feature (the Ridge) boy !,I have very little going for this new insight ! I can forego the usual complaints of peer review,if a person is not up to appreciating rotational dynamics or wishes to remain at their level of understanding there is no reason to argue against this self- moderation imposed on rotational dynamics of the viscous interior.I can give you a broad view of what happens when people cannot alter their position from stationary Earth concepts such as Galileo's observations on those who *operate at a lower intellectual and intutive level - Your entire problem stems from your lack of knowledge of the past. There are the remains of ancient continental collisions all over the globe *and they show no bias as relates to planetary rotation. Rotational dynamics is a working principle *which links planetary shape with crustal motion under a common differential rotation..... No , it isn't ! Brad Suit yourself !. I have sworn off throwing magnificent material after bad such as the excellent possibilities of rotational dynamics as they apply to planetary shape/crustal motion as opposed to a nonsensical thermal convection thingie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
3-D seismic model of vast water reservoir revealed: Earth mantle 'ocean' (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | February 18th 07 02:19 PM |
Study Indicates Ceres May Have Water-Ice Mantle | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 10th 05 02:49 AM |
Study Indicates Ceres May Have Water-Ice Mantle | [email protected] | News | 0 | September 10th 05 02:48 AM |