|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot (was Why Earth's mantle is solid)
"don findlay" wrote in message
... 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. Earlier hypotheses did anticipate the possible role of rotational factors as documented in the rather dated text: Bickford, M. E., Bolt, B. A., Broecker, W. A., Brown, G. E., Bullard, E. C., Ernst, W. G., Hamilton, W., Hartmann, W., Holland, H. D., Hunt, C. B., Jokela, A., Kaesler, R., Klitgord, K., Le Pichon, X., Lewis, J., Londsdale, P., Merrill, W. M., Phinney, R. A., Raup D. M., Schopf, J. W., Sharp, R. P., Stevens, P. R., Van Schmus, W. R., 1973, "Geology Today", CRM Books, California, U.S.A Now if these ideas did not survive, perhaps it is because the real world plate motion measurements do not support them... 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 This has nothing to do with the implications of cosmogenic isotope evidence. If subduction didn't happen, there would be no Beryllium 10 in lavas; period. If subduction did not happen, there would be lots of billion year old oceanic crust floating around on the mantle. There isn't and it had to go somewhere because we know the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. These facts stand irrespective of what is argued to drive the system. 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. This is not substantiated by real world measurement of plate motion. 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. No heat is generated by rotation - this is a matter of angular momentum - which is conserved unless an outside force acts upon it. Some heat may be generated by gravitational fluctuations. Nuclear material in the earth is the speculated heat source and this is confirmed by the phenomena of natural meltdowns such as those evidenced by some west African uranium deposits. 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.) There is no evidence for topological growth independent of the incorrect assertion that subduction does not occur. Subduction does occur as dating and cosmogenic isotope studies confirm. 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 The only reason your computer works is because peer-review rejected all the capacitive-gravity generation nonsense (which incidently has absolutely no working prototypes in spite of all the U.S. Patents) in favour of semi-conductor theory, which actually does something useful if applied. Plate tectonics can be used to predict with a high degree of accuracy, the range of bulk composition that a given magma will fall into based on the location of the eruption, and seismic activity for a given location - real theories have practical applications that work. Expanding earth theory fails to predict increased seismic and geological activity measured at convergent margins, nor does expanding earth theory accurately predict oceanic crust age at convergent margins - something not only predicted accurately by plate tectonics, but plate tectonics is confirmed by geographic distribution of fossil assemblages through time as well as being confirmed by the appearance of that niggly cosmogenic isotope (Beryllium 10) in lavas that without subduction would have no source of beryllium 10 whatsoever. 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.) No, I'm following a process that has worked in the past with no indication of any reason why it should not continue to work in the future while making my own mind up about what the data means. People sometimes make mistakes, but there is a thriving demand to be the one who makes the correction. If you check the science citation index for Royer et. al. (2004), you will no doubt discover that many more people than Shaviv and Vizier (2004) had something to say. Lots of people have something to say about Prof. Mann's hockey stick, and Prof. Wang gets crucified for not checking the evidence when he claims that the Heat Island Effect is accounted for in the instrumental temperature graph used by most climate change catastrophists. __________________________________________________ __________ 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! |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot
On Sep 23, 5:32*pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote: "don findlay" wrote in message ... 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. Earlier hypotheses did anticipate the possible role of rotational factors as documented in the rather dated text: Bickford, M. E., Bolt, B. A., Broecker, W. A., Brown, G. E., Bullard, E. C., Ernst, W. G., Hamilton, W., Hartmann, W., Holland, H. D., Hunt, C. B., Jokela, A., Kaesler, R., Klitgord, K., Le Pichon, X., Lewis, J., Londsdale, P., Merrill, W. M., Phinney, R. A., Raup D. M., Schopf, J. W., Sharp, R. P., Stevens, P. R., Van Schmus, W. R., 1973, "Geology Today", CRM Books, California, U.S.A Now if these ideas did not survive, perhaps it is because the real world plate motion measurements do not support them... The fact is that the fractured crust profiles the spherical deviation of the planet therefore the rotational dynamic and specifically differential rotation of the viscous interior is already involved in plate tectonics,it may be just that some are either too dull or too impressed with their own stationary Earth notions to take notice.Plate tectonics is an excellent working principle that is being systematically destroyed by a stationary Earth 'convection cell' mechanism and an interior composition/viscosity designed around that unfortunate conception ,for those who feel comfortable with the reasoning for 'convection cells' then have a ball but others may enjoy something more productive like the fact that the Earth turns at 1000 miles per hour at the Equator and diminishes to 0 miles per hour at the geographical poles. I could talk about how the motion of fractured crust across the spherical deviation as a means to facilitate subduction or as a means to explain intraplate events among other things but perhaps when I have to descend to the level of convection cell adherents,it becomes a waste of information and effort,it is also draining.When an institution or group of individuals decide to take on board a better approach to evolutionary geology then perhaps down the line a discussion based on chemicals can emerge but without a rotational influence,it may as well be a flat Earth mechanism for crustal motion. Rotational dynamics is such a vibrant topic that can be appreciated by just about anyone with a taste for adventurous thinking where it is so natural to make the leap from rotational dynamics to crustal dynamics that is actually harder to remain with stationary Earth notions.I think I have said enough for genuine people to get the point at this stage and can drop it for a while. 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 This has nothing to do with the implications of cosmogenic isotope evidence. If subduction didn't happen, there would be no Beryllium 10 in lavas; period. If subduction did not happen, there would be lots of billion year old oceanic crust floating around on the mantle. There isn't and it had to go somewhere because we know the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. These facts stand irrespective of what is argued to drive the system. 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. This is not substantiated by real world measurement of plate motion. 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. No heat is generated by rotation - this is a matter of angular momentum - which is conserved unless an outside force acts upon it. Some heat may be generated by gravitational fluctuations. Nuclear material in the earth is the speculated heat source and this is confirmed by the phenomena of natural meltdowns such as those evidenced by some west African uranium deposits. 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.) There is no evidence for topological growth independent of the incorrect assertion that subduction does not occur. Subduction does occur as dating and cosmogenic isotope studies confirm. 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 The only reason your computer works is because peer-review rejected all the capacitive-gravity generation nonsense (which incidently has absolutely no working prototypes in spite of all the U.S. Patents) in favour of semi-conductor theory, which actually does something useful if applied. Plate tectonics can be used to predict with a high degree of accuracy, the range of bulk composition that a given magma will fall into based on the location of the eruption, and seismic activity for a given location - real theories have practical applications that work. Expanding earth theory fails to predict increased seismic and geological activity measured at convergent margins, nor does expanding earth theory accurately predict oceanic crust age at convergent margins - something not only predicted accurately by plate tectonics, but plate tectonics is confirmed by geographic distribution of fossil assemblages through time as well as being confirmed by the appearance of that niggly cosmogenic isotope (Beryllium 10) in lavas that without subduction would have no source of beryllium 10 whatsoever. 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.) No, I'm following a process that has worked in the past with no indication of any reason why it should not continue to work in the future while making my own mind up about what the data means. People sometimes make mistakes, but there is a thriving demand to be the one who makes the correction. If you check the science citation index for Royer et. al. (2004), you will no doubt discover that many more people than Shaviv and Vizier (2004) had something to say. Lots of people have something to say about Prof. Mann's hockey stick, and Prof. Wang gets crucified for not checking the evidence when he claims that the Heat Island Effect is accounted for in the instrumental temperature graph used by most climate change catastrophists.. __________________________________________________ __________ 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! |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot (was Why Earth's mantle is solid)
"oriel36" wrote in message
... [SNIP] Where there is a temperature gradient, you can't leave convection out of the picture. Differential rotation could explain relative motion of convection cells, if the historical sequence of transform fault activity confirms that regions of upwelling (and thus adjacent convection cells) are actually moving with respect to one another. Likewise movement of backarc volcanic activity through time, could also be used to test the idea. This appears to make sense, because high and low pressure systems in the atmosphere are also in flux, with differential rotation driven by both latiduinal and vertical thermal gradients. However, in absence of solar radiative effect, the question this raises is whether there would be a latitidinal thermal gradient in the mantle? Suffice it to say that the discovery of such a beastie would, with or without an explanation, make very good copy for the likes of Nature or Science. It would be a great coup for whoever authors the hypothetically published findings - but what could cause latitudinal thermal gradient in the mantle? In any case, the removal of the latitudinal thermal gradient from the atmosphere would simplify atmospheric patterns, no? Perhaps all that would be left may be thermal convection...? __________________________________________________ __________ 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! |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot
On Sep 24, 5:32*pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote: "oriel36" wrote in message ... [SNIP] Where there is a temperature gradient, you can't leave convection out of the picture. Differential rotation could explain relative motion of convection cells, if the historical sequence of transform fault activity confirms that regions of upwelling (and thus adjacent convection cells) are actually moving with respect to one another. Likewise movement of backarc volcanic activity through time, could also be used to test the idea. This appears to make sense, because high and low pressure systems in the atmosphere are also in flux, with differential rotation driven by both latiduinal and vertical thermal gradients. However, in absence of solar radiative effect, the question this raises is whether there would be a latitidinal thermal gradient in the mantle? Suffice it to say that the discovery of such a beastie would, with or without an explanation, make very good copy for the likes of Nature or Science. It would be a great coup for whoever authors the hypothetically published findings - but what could cause latitudinal thermal gradient in the mantle? In any case, the removal of the latitudinal thermal gradient from the atmosphere would simplify atmospheric patterns, no? Perhaps all that would be left may be thermal convection...? I strongly suggest that you remain with your thermal 'convection cell' mechanism where you can do no harm and I have indicated that dealing with fluid dynamics and differential rotation is simply a matter for those who can handle it regardless of the geological consequences. I am content to remain with the basic trajectory of reasoning which links generalised rules for rotating bodies in a viscous state with both spherical deviation and differential rotation,the subsequent geological affects on the thin and fractured crust of the Earth follows and from there to surface correlations and features. I have no stomach for grandstanding on a issue that simply directs people to already known principles which link shape with rotation with more detail such as differential rotation added.It is clear,it is in that form a very simple working principle with incredible possibilities to explain meta features such as the Mid Atlantic ridge and development off the entire length of the ridge. http://www.platetectonics.com/oceanf..._America_4.jpg You had your answer in terms of the valuable information which links the profile of the fractured crust with rotational dynamics yet it is wasted as so many times before.I think too much of the geologists such as Steno and Wegener to be seen arguing for a rotating Earth and its consequences via the viscous interior. __________________________________________________ __________ 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! |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot (was Why Earth's mantle is solid)
"oriel36" wrote in message
... [SNIP] "You had your answer in terms of the valuable information which links the profile of the fractured crust with rotational dynamics yet it is wasted as so many times before." [SNIP] Yet I am unconvinced of this link, which remains unsubstantiated. No references, not even a textbook... -- __________________________________________________ __________ 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! |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot
On Oct 6, 5:07*am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote: "oriel36" wrote in message ... [SNIP] "You had your answer in terms of the valuable information which links the profile of the fractured crust with rotational dynamics yet it is wasted as so many times before." [SNIP] Yet I am unconvinced of this link, which remains unsubstantiated. No references, not even a textbook... -- __________________________________________________ __________ 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! It has been known for centuries that the Earth is not a perfect sphere and deviates in the region of 40km and while the basic fact that this deviation is due to the daily rotation of the Earth, the details of viscosity composition and behavior of the rotating interior are scarce. In all probability with all the focus on a geostationary thermal ‘convection cells’ and the interior designed around that mechanism, geologists have forgotten or omitted considerations about the planet’s shape and most of the basic working principles for tectonic activity should arise from the rotational details surrounding the spherical deviation. So ,it appears that people approach either the spherical deviation or plate tectonics are in somewhat of a bind, at least one that is self- imposed. As differential rotation occurs in all rotating celestial bodies with a viscous composition and it is already known that variations in Equatorial speed affect sphericity for a given composition ,there is no reason to believe that the interior composition of the Earth is exempt from the same rotational elements With no great leap of imagination, I assume most people could adjust to the mechanism for creating both the spherical deviation and as the mechanism for crustal motion via the explanation for the global seam that split’s the Atlantic Ocean, commonly known as the MAR or MOR. A global feature such as the ridge requires a global solution and only the specifics of rotational dynamics can satisfy such a feature whereas localised ‘convection cells cannot. It is remarkable that people can actually continue discussing geology of the planet without taking notice of the most basic of all facts - it is round and it is also rotating and that rotation has geological consequences. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot (was Why Earth's mantle is solid)
"oriel36" wrote in message
... [SNIP] 1. Convection cells are not assumed to be geostationary, and what we know of their motion is what we measure along transform faults. 2. Differential rotation only occurs in some but definitely *not*all* "celestial bodies" and is countered by internal friction. 3. MARs and MORs do not explain the Great Dividing Range, the Alps and the Himalyas; whereas thermal convection, plate tectonics, and subduction does. 4. Thermal convection is supported by comsogenic isotope studies as is subduction. 5. Rate of subduction is measured directly by GPS monitoring. See http://expansion.geologist-1011.net for some references... __________________________________________________ __________ 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! |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot
On Oct 13, 10:16*am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote: "oriel36" wrote in message ... [SNIP] 1. Convection cells are not assumed to be geostationary, and what we know of their motion is what we measure along transform faults. Convection cells require no association with the planet's shape and spherical deviation and more importantly,require no link with rotational dynamics. 2. Differential rotation only occurs in some but definitely *not*all* "celestial bodies" and is countered by internal friction. I will not descend to a level where a rotating celestial object withy a viscous composition is exempt from fluid dynamics and implied differential rotation.If you specify that a rotating viscous object is exempt then good for you but I would not wish to hear about it. 3. MARs and MORs do not explain the Great Dividing Range, the Alps and the Himalyas; whereas thermal convection, plate tectonics, and subduction does. Let me paraphrase that for you - " The Mid Atlantic Ridge and the Mid Oceanic Ridge do not explain....".Enough said !. 4. Thermal convection is supported by comsogenic isotope studies as is subduction. Good for you,thermal convection has the same appearances as a highly elaborate geocentric scheme in the absence of rotational dynamics,in this respect I concur with Copernicus - ". . 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 5. Rate of subduction is measured directly by GPS monitoring. I actually require people who are serious about the matter and who can expand on the arguments which link rotational dynamics with evolutionary geology in a meaningful way,so far it hasn't happened but it is one of these things where the point of departure is so radical, much like the difference between geocentric and heliocentric precepts,that the usual slow assimilation does not apply. Seehttp://expansion.geologist-1011.netfor some references... All this means is that the exquisite link between planetary shape and crustal dynamics via fluid dynamics of the rotating interior replacing a non-rotating (geostationary) mechanism such as 'convection cells' remains out of bounds.People are literally arguing for a stationary Earth notion and that is remarkable given that when approaching other rotating celestial objects with viscous compositions there is not the slightest problem with the correlation between maximum Equatorial speed,differential rotation and spherical deviation.The addition of the fractured thin crust profiling the internal rotational dynamics should provide for a more vibrant approach to crustal evolution and motion. Take care now and be proud of you thermally driven 'convection cells',you have promoted your ideas in a fair and civil way and I could not ask for more than that. __________________________________________________ __________ 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! |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot
Number Eleven - GPEMC! wrote: "oriel36" wrote in message ... [SNIP] 1. Convection cells are not assumed to be geostationary, and what we know of their motion is what we measure along transform faults. And what motion is that, now? What we do 'know' is that beyond the ridge offsets the 'cells' (i.e. the ocean floor as a whole) all move as one, i.e., that there is only one cell - the Pacific. And if you want to talk about The Americas (north and south) The Atlantic, Africa and the entirety of Asia, it all moves as one too, overriding the Pacific from opposite sides. So what sort of a convection cell is that, ...where one overrides the other - on a global scale? What by your measure drives the oceanic one (which goes over the top) and what drives the oceanic one (which goes underneath)? ....because by Plate Tectonics' measure both are driven by the so-called subducting slab. (You know, ... that little subducting slab... The whole of the world's crust/ lithosphere, ... to a thousand kilometres depth, ..set in motion by the cooling slab... Your shot. PS I'll bet you think Plate Tectonics is about thermally driven convection, ...from the heat inside the Earth. Well not according to Plate Tectonics it isn't. It's driven by the gravity-sinking motion of the cooled 'slab' Like the sinking Titanic drives ocean currents. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Which says nothing about the Mantle You really are an idiot
On Oct 13, 9:25*am, don findlay wrote:
Number Eleven - GPEMC! wrote: "oriel36" wrote in message .... [SNIP] 1. Convection cells are not assumed to be geostationary, and what we know of their motion is what we measure along transform faults. And what motion is that, now? *What we do 'know' is that beyond the ridge offsets the 'cells' (i.e. the ocean floor as a whole) all move as one, i.e., that there is only one cell - the Pacific. What we do know is that the dominant spreading center (in terms of the Pacific Plate) is the MAR. Why else would the Pacific be closing from East and West ? You are attempting to define this argument on your terms and then asking questions based on insufficient initial conditions. And if you want to talk about The Americas (north and south) The Atlantic, Africa and the entirety of Asia, it all moves as one too, overriding the Pacific from opposite sides. More evidence for the dominance of the MAR today. BTW , on an expanding planet why would there be any overriding at all ? The East Pacific Rise is beneath N . America . When do you think expansion will re- expose it ? *So what sort of a convection cell is that, ...where one overrides the other - on a global scale? One (Pacific) losing its influence on the Geostructure of the planet. Its energy has diminished . *What by your measure drives the oceanic one (which goes over the top) *and what drives the oceanic one (which goes underneath)? ....because by Plate Tectonics' measure both are driven by the so-called subducting slab. There is more than one theory of PT . (You know, ... *that little subducting slab... *The whole of the world's crust/ lithosphere, ... to a thousand kilometres depth, ..set in motion by the cooling slab... Set in motion by the cooling slab ? How logical is it that a smaller mass controls the motion of a larger one without an infusion of extra energy ? Your shot. PS I'll bet you think Plate Tectonics is about thermally driven convection, ...from the heat inside the Earth. *Well not according to Plate Tectonics it isn't. *It's driven by the gravity-sinking motion of the cooled 'slab' * Like the sinking Titanic drives ocean currents. Don't attempt to set parameters and then demand compliance . Your own ideas have many more problems you conveniently ignore. Brad |
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 03:19 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 |