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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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.

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

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

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

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.