A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why Earth's mantle is solid



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old September 23rd 08, 04:32 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.geo.geology
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default 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  
Old September 23rd 08, 06:38 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.geo.geology
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default 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  
Old September 24th 08, 04:32 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.geo.geology
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default 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  
Old September 24th 08, 08:39 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.geo.geology
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,189
Default 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  
Old October 6th 08, 04:07 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.geo.geology
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default 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  
Old October 8th 08, 02:09 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.geo.geology
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,189
Default 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  
Old October 13th 08, 10:16 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.geo.geology
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default 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  
Old October 13th 08, 11:20 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.geo.geology
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,189
Default 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  
Old October 13th 08, 02:25 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.geo.geology
don findlay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 513
Default 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  
Old October 13th 08, 03:11 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.geo.geology
brad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.