Why Earth's mantle is solid

brad wrote:

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 ?

If the 'AR' is the dominant spreading centre, ..you mean this is what
is causing the Pacific to close - by causing the the Asian and
American continents to override? (We'd better call you PhysiBrad)
(certainly not GeoBrad anymore).


You are
attempting to define this argument on your terms and then asking
questions based
on insufficient initial conditions.

Yeah? How?


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 ?

Spin. The Earth is spinning, don't you know...? And spinning
causes dislocation on *ALL* 'shells of weakness'. (e.g., the
Asthenosphere/ transition zone/ and core mantle boundary as we know
them.


The East Pacific Rise is
beneath N . America .
When do you think expansion will re- expose it ?

It probably won't, ..knowing the spin things are in.


�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 .

Sorry. Nope. Subduction drives this mother. Subduction is the
driver, so subduction is the mother. The mother cannot diminish in
the face of its progeny.


�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 .

Yeah, ..you don't say! As many as necessary. That's the problem.



(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 ?

It isn't, ..but that's what Plate Tectonics would have you believe.


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.

Like what? (...apart from how is mass created, which is everyone's
problem - even Plate Tectonics')




Brad (Fizzy-brad)

Come back Brad. Be rescued. Be Geo.

Number Eleven - GPEMC! wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message
...
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.

Exactly, meaning the shape is irrelevant to the existence of thermal
convection cells.


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.

Differential rotation needs an energy source and a mechanism to drive
it against friction.

The Energy source and mechanism would simply be the gravitational
differences that are in effect with an elliptical orbit.
Along with the Moons orbit being a contributing factor and
with the accelerations Earth has fun with when on the return
trip from the furthest point away on elliptical orbit.
The differentials and the power sources are there.

Example:
(perfect orbit) (no differentials after all synced up)
A glass of water sitting on a turntable in perfect orbit and perfect spin
rate of the glass will sync up and no differential change would occur.
It would end up with the water spinning with the glass without
any changes after a while.
(elliptical orbit( differentials in orbit and surrounding forces)
But with an elliptical orbit and accleration of the return
trip and a second attractive force,
(or push force depending what gravity theory you subscribe to)
will cause a differential motion in the water to the glass.

It's all there.
At least I can see it anyway.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman

"don findlay" wrote in message
...


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.

It's not necessarily that simple. Oriel36 seems ver interested in the
prospect of differential rotation within the mantle. I can't find any direct
evidence such as applicable mantle shear zones, but this does not discount
the possibility. Multiple cells are more likely.

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.

Multiple, possibly irregular convection cells - we don't know the shape or
number of cells, but we do know from cosmogenic isotope studies that mantle
and crust motion is confluent regardless of the details that cannot be
measured. The fact that the detailed internal dynamics of a storm are beyond
comprehension does not disproved the existence of the storm.

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.

Chicken and egg problems are solved through elementary recursive analysis -
usually by imposing a hermetic or "well-formed" hierarchy on the definitions
of process stages in order to define a hierarchy of cycles. The heat was
there before slab-pull existed - therefore the system is heat driven and
slab-pull is secondary. I'm forgetting; subduction is directly measured,
using GPS equipment (see http://expansion.geologist-1011.net for more
detail). Subduction is verified by scientific observation.



__________________________________________________ __________
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!

"oriel36" wrote in message
...
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.

Exactly, meaning the shape is irrelevant to the existence of thermal
convection cells.


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.

Differential rotation needs an energy source and a mechanism to drive it
against 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.

Let me paraphrase that for you - " The Mid Atlantic Ridge and the Mid
Oceanic Ridge do not explain....".Enough said !.

Let me repeat paraphrase myself! Rifting does not explain the Great Dividing
Range, the Alps and the Himalayas; whereas thermal convection, plate
tectonics, and subduction does. How is this so? Because an expanding earth
devoid of subductive processes would not deform at the thickest part of the
crust (continental) but at the thinnest most ductile part of the crust. Only
subduction can explain why mountain building takes place at convergent
boundaries instead of divergent boundaries.

4. Thermal convection is supported by cosmogenic 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 modelled 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

Nothing else explains the outcomes of these cosmogenic isotope studies I
mention at http://expansion.geologist-1011.net, and that leaves us with the
best explanation to date - which just happened to be thermal convection (the
rule rather than the exception in fluid systems possessing a thermal
gradient capable of overcoming internal friction)

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.
[SNIP]


Well, your differential mantle rotation might find some support in those
transform faults - but the proof would come from direct measurement of
differential rifting between parts on either side of the transform fault. I
think you'll need to do some very thorough data mining, and it is likely you
may have to put the idea forward as a Ph.D. proposal, and raise funding for
your own measurement project.

If I find anything I think is relevant, I'll make a point of letting you
know.
Good luck - I think you have a lot of work ahead of you...



__________________________________________________ __________
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 Oct 14, 7:49*am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message

...
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.

Exactly, meaning the shape is irrelevant to the existence of thermal
convection cells.


By the same token,rotational dynamics of the viscous interior is
responsible for the 40km deviation from a perfect sphere with the
specifics emerging from differential rotation similar to the
generalised principles which govern the intimate link between maximum
equatorial speeds,differential rotation and spherical deviation in
rotating stellar bodies -

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/200..._2001_150.html

Spherical deviation is therefore a consequence of fluid dynamics of a
rotating object and while the midriff bulge and rotation has been
known for centuries and doubted by nobody,the specifics of
differential rotation is the most productive approach to explaining
our planet's spherical deviation.With everyone so focused on the
Earth's interior by using thermal convection to explain the evolution
and motion of the fractured crust,they entirely forgot about the
composition and dynamics needed to generate the 40 km deviation.

It is more productive to explain the Earth's spherical deviation via
generalised principles of fluid dynamics than exempt the planet from
the same rules which link rotation to sphericity with the additional
consequence that the second largest geographical feature - the Mid
Atlantic Ridge supports the rotational component due to generation of
crust in proportion off the entire length of the ridge.Because I have
worked with the rotational component for many years and have no
interest in 'convection cells',I am not just intrigued by the
orientation which indicates a rotational component and the creation of
oceanic crust off the entire length of the ridge but by the symmetry
of crustal development between the Americas and Europe/Africa -

http://spp1144.pangaea.de/Atlantic_Fig1.jpg


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.

Differential rotation needs an energy source and a mechanism to drive it
against friction.


Differential rotation is a consequence of fluid dynamics occurring in
a rotating celestial body with a viscous composition.




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 !.

Let me repeat paraphrase myself! Rifting does not explain the Great Dividing
Range, the Alps and the Himalayas; whereas thermal convection, plate
tectonics, and subduction does. How is this so?

You are mixing surface correlations such as mountain ridges with
crustal generation off the mid Atlantic Ridge whereas there are very
good reasons behind partially decoupling crustal generation off the
oceanic ridge from continental collisions and some genuine geologists
are actually attempting to do this.They will not accomplish anything
unless they distance themselves from an interior organised around
convection cells however,I just cannot see how they are going to
ignore crustal generation off the entire length of MAR for much
longer and that means looking closely at rotational dynamics.

You are guessing of course and throwing the kitchen sink at supporting
thermal convection but I need people who can settle down and look at
the major features first and then apply local correlations afterwards.





Because an expanding earth
devoid of subductive processes would not deform at the thickest part of the
crust (continental) but at the thinnest most ductile part of the crust. Only
subduction can explain why mountain building takes place at convergent
boundaries instead of divergent boundaries.


The old tendency is to use surface correlations to invest substance in
convection cells whereas the new approach is to apply a solution for
spherical deviation first and then rework the details of fluid
dynamics to crustal generation with the Mid Atlantic Ridge serving the
purpose of linking the rotational elements with surface
features.Mountain building therefore exists as a secondary geological
consequence but this is a satisfactory means to allow crustal
evolution to emerge as a consequence of planetary rotation while the
spherical deviation to dictates viscosity,composition and behavior of
the interior.

It is like having an enormous clue - what does it take for the
interior to deviate from a perfect sphere by 40km with a maximum
Equatorial speed of 1000 miles diminishing to 0 miles at the
geographical poles and not a serious person in sight to consider
this never mind the geological consequences !.




4. Thermal convection is supported by cosmogenic 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 modelled 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

Nothing else explains the outcomes of these cosmogenic isotope studies I
mention athttp://expansion.geologist-1011.net, and that leaves us with the
best explanation to date - which just happened to be thermal convection (the
rule rather than the exception in fluid systems possessing a thermal
gradient capable of overcoming internal friction)


Geostationary means the Earth is not moving/rotating therefore thermal
convection is a geostationary Earth notion.There are geological
outriggers of spherical deviation insofar as the motion of the crust
across the less than spherical profile of the Earth has geological
consequences but again,nobody who is serious or excited about the
matter.




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.

[SNIP]

Well, your differential mantle rotation might find some support in those
transform faults - but the proof would come from direct measurement of
differential rifting between parts on either side of the transform fault. I
think you'll need to do some very thorough data mining, and it is likely you
may have to put the idea forward as a Ph.D. proposal, and raise funding for
your own measurement project.

If I find anything I think is relevant, I'll make a point of letting you
know.
Good luck - I think you have a lot of work ahead of you...


I do not have any work ahead of me,I happen to recognise the daily
rotation of the Earth and extend it to geological consequences such as
planetary shape and crustal motion/evolution and enjoy it.You seem
content with the intricacies of your stationary Earth 'convection
cell' mechanism and you have the citations of many Ph.D's in
support,it does represent very different levels of reasoning but I do
not have any complaints on that matter.







__________________________________________________ __________
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!