Why Earth's mantle is solid

oriel36 wrote:


You are talking when you should be listening

Are they? I don't think so. All I hear is just the silence of
''who's-looking-at-who', as they stop pecking each other's bums and
try to work out which chook amongst them is going to stand up and own
this one for them. It has to be in chookspeak before they hear it.
And it needs one of *them* to do that. They're waiting for a BigChook
amongst them to repeat what you're saying. At the moment they're just
going through the this-way-and-that ritual of eyeing each other.

On Sep 7, 9:57*am, don findlay wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

You are talking when you should be listening

Are they? *I don't think so. *All I hear is just the silence of
''who's-looking-at-who', as they stop pecking each other's bums and
try to work out which chook amongst them is going to stand up and own
this one for them. *It has to be in chookspeak before they hear it.
And it needs one of *them* to do that. *They're waiting for a BigChook
amongst them to repeat what you're saying. *At the moment they're just
going through the this-way-and-that ritual of eyeing each other.


I have always stated that it will come down to a mechanism and
rotational dynamics requires no reference to either a balooning Earth
or a stationary thermally convecting one .The dramatic departure
from contemporary studies is in taking a wider geological and
astronomical view in facilitating an overlap of geological and
astronomical disciplines via the shape of the planet and then looking
at how the fractured crust responds to the rotation of the viscous
interior just as the shape of the planet does.I would expect
objections to the generalised rules based on rotational dynamics in
stars but any objection is negated on the basis that the relationship
between fluid dynamics and sphericity is already observationally
affirmed therefore making the Earth an exception presents more
difficulties than it solves.

The usual courtesy of allowing the ad hoc mechanism of 'convection
cells' to fade or rather , the shift from a stationary Earth mechanism
to the possibilities offered by rotational dynamics speaks more about
the modern tendency to assimilate genuine discoveries in an anonymous
way and although an injustice and contrary to the merit system there
are worse things going on.With all due respect,the shuffling of
surface correlations or concentration on surface chemical compositions
hardly reaches the level between the largest geological
featuires,planetary shape,orientation of the Mid-Atlantic
ridge,crustal development off that ridge with an underlying mechanism
that stringle suggests a rotational component.

Despite the signature of one particpant that a good idea faces strong
opposition and then becomes accepted through time is contrary to what
I have witnessed insofar as assimilation seems to be the way of
adjusting things and although it may diminish the efforts of an
individual and the merit system, such is this era where people are so
afraid of making a mistake or offending group consensus that an
almost anti-investigative atmosphere prevails. I understand that
considerations of rotational dynamics alters the picture in such a
dramatic way that it may not be possible to slowly adjust for one very
specific reason - the internal composition and viscosity of the
Earth's interior has been designed around thermal convection whereas
rotational dynamics,at least the one which generates the 40 KM
spherical deviation would require a different internal overview of
composition\viscosity.For me it is not a dilemma as I do not consider
thermal convection whereas others may find rotational dynamics
tempting but can't adjust to that dynamic from thermal convection.

Big issue but enjoyable at the same time.

On Sep 4, 3:53 pm, Andrew Usher wrote:

The
amount of granitic crust which could exsolve is pretty high, if the
mean composition is that of albite perhaps 20% of the mantle in the
extreme - but this would not be reached until far below the solidus.

Actually, I found out that Earth is very depleted in alkalis, so the
mantle Al/alkali ratio is more like 8 than the cosmic ratio of 1.3 .
The composition of granitic rocks would remain practically constant
across this range with an effective ratio (after including Ca and
other cations) of 1, so merely the amount of granite wolud change.

It is not likely that any celestial body could go the other way,
with an enrichment of alkalis compared to Al, so the main
composition of granitic rock (alkali aluminosilicate) should be the
same everywhere, though the lesser elements will vary.

Andrew Usher

oriel36 wrote:


On Sep 7, 9:57�am, don findlay wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

You are talking when you should be listening

Are they? �I don't think so. �All I hear is just the silence of
''who's-looking-at-who', as they stop pecking each other's bums and
try to work out which chook amongst them is going to stand up and own
this one for them. �It has to be in chookspeak before they hear it.
And it needs one of *them* to do that. �They're waiting for a BigChook
amongst them to repeat what you're saying. �At the moment they're just
going through the this-way-and-that ritual of eyeing each other.


I have always stated that it will come down to a mechanism and
rotational dynamics requires no reference to either a balooning Earth
or a stationary thermally convecting one .The dramatic departure
from contemporary studies is in taking a wider geological and
astronomical view in facilitating an overlap of geological and
astronomical disciplines via the shape of the planet and then looking
at how the fractured crust responds to the rotation of the viscous
interior just as the shape of the planet does.

Taking the patterns of structural adjustment in relation to the
Earth's rotation is precisely what all of that green index page on my
site is about. It demonstrates that the structures that describe
rotational adjustment are the same ones that describe global
enlargement. Combining that with an astronomical framework is the
next step, ..and I think Mars shows an indication of that in the
relation of the Valles Marineris to the Tharsis Bubble.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/mars/index.html
That 'bubble' has a direct analogue with the initiation of Pacific
Spreading on Earth, and the geological history on Earth would support
an outpouring of water (as well as LIPS lavas) at that time too.


I would expect
objections to the generalised rules based on rotational dynamics in
stars but any objection is negated on the basis that the relationship
between fluid dynamics and sphericity is already observationally
affirmed therefore making the Earth an exception presents more
difficulties than it solves.

Sure. That's the big problem for Plate Tectonics. It cannot adapt
itself to Earth Rotation and the implications that follow from it in
*ANY WAY WHATSOEVER*, without negating itself entirely. Pouf! It
goes up in smoke. Everything about it is a dead duck. That's why
there's the silence, and the best muster they can put forward is
George in his whisky glass. And therein it goes right back to the
intial assumption that was made in the first place, on which the whole
edifice of Plate Tectonics is based - that the Earth cannot be getting
bigger:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html
That was the point of divergence from commonsense in the beginning and
the point to which geology must return. Arthur Holmes begins his book
'*Principles of Physical Geology* with the observation that the
Earth's geology must be interpreted in terms of its two balancing
elements, gravity and rotation, ..and the whole of his book is
testimony to how those are worked across the face of the Earth. It's
a further interesting point that although recognising a radioactive
source for heat and convection, and getting a prize for that, it is
reported that towards the end of his life he was never able to
reconcile heat as a driver for convection, with the tectonics of
global deformation.



The usual courtesy of allowing the ad hoc mechanism of 'convection
cells' to fade or rather , the shift from a stationary Earth mechanism
to the possibilities offered by rotational dynamics speaks more about
the modern tendency to assimilate genuine discoveries in an anonymous
way

It's called the Meme Machine. First you create the meme, ..
outlining the glaringly obvious on grounds of rational and logical
belief, as you are doing here in respect of rotation. Then you write
the support around it. That way, since everybody already accepts it
(and believes it), you don't have to formally support it peer review.
All you have to do is state it. Support is already accomplished.
Your peer reviewers believe it too. So you don't waste time.
Exactly the same thing happened with Plate Tectonics. It was based on
a belief that the Earth could not be getting bigger because there was
no known way in physical theory that it could. It doesn't matter that
*everything* written about it since is self-contradictory -
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subcrux.html
....it's not the point. That's when there is a segue of focus from the
science to the career scientist. If you want to make a change, you
have to do it within the system - play them at their own game. Have
them read what you have to say within the scope of their own belief.
Don't tell them 'the obvious', ..let them tell you. Once it is
generally believed anyone can write any bull**** and notch it to their
'achievements'. Nice when somebody does the hard yards for them first
though.


and although an injustice and contrary to the merit system there
are worse things going on.

"Justice and merit"? Hah! .. You only have to listen to the likes of
Stuart and what he expouses, and juxtapose that with what these guys
say -
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/fraud.html
....to know where mainstream career interest lies. I mean lies.
(lies)


With all due respect,the shuffling of
surface correlations or concentration on surface chemical compositions
hardly reaches the level between the largest geological
featuires,planetary shape,orientation of the Mid-Atlantic
ridge,crustal development off that ridge with an underlying mechanism
that stringle suggests a rotational component.

Geology hasn't even properly begun yet. For this last half century
the subject has been becalmed in the doldrums of career interest.
Hopefully the younger ones looking for a better deal than is offered
by PT kindergarten 'activity', will work something out, ..but who
knows, .. geology might need to be brought under the aegis of
astronomy to allow the current lot of cranks to wither and die
gracefully. It's an exciting time as the planets are being brought in
to the picture. But a pity there seems to be (so far) no interest in
properly interpreting the geology of this one first.


Despite the signature of one particpant that a good idea faces strong
opposition and then becomes accepted through time is contrary to what
I have witnessed insofar as assimilation seems to be the way of
adjusting things and although it may diminish the efforts of an
individual and the merit system, such is this era where people are so
afraid of making a mistake or offending group consensus that an
almost anti-investigative atmosphere prevails.

Such is the way it has become politically incorrect to offend people's
belief systems. Right across the board there is no such thing any
more as being wrong. Everything somehow has value.

I understand that
considerations of rotational dynamics alters the picture in such a
dramatic way that it may not be possible to slowly adjust for one very
specific reason - the internal composition and viscosity of the
Earth's interior has been designed around thermal convection whereas
rotational dynamics,at least the one which generates the 40 KM
spherical deviation would require a different internal overview of
composition\viscosity.For me it is not a dilemma as I do not consider
thermal convection whereas others may find rotational dynamics
tempting but can't adjust to that dynamic from thermal convection.

Yup the Plate Tectonics theorists have a hard time ahead of them,
trying to lug that baggage around with them and squeeze it into the
most impossible spaces (everybody believed it for nearly a century so
it must be right). It will be a laugh to see how they try, and
certainly a spotlight on the difference between the science and the
scientist.


Big issue but enjoyable at the same time.

On Sep 6, 10:16 pm, Andrew Usher wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:29 am, BradGuth wrote:

Earth's crust is actually quite fluid to the 2e20 N tidal forces of
our Selene/moon, as supposedly good for a crust wave of 55 cm.

Elastic deformation.

Andrew Usher

Correct, and such elastic deforming via tidal flex is where some of
that 2e20 N/sec gets converted into heat (aka global warming).

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Sep 8, 2:04*am, don findlay wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Sep 7, 9:57 am, don findlay wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

You are talking when you should be listening

Are they? I don't think so. All I hear is just the silence of
''who's-looking-at-who', as they stop pecking each other's bums and
try to work out which chook amongst them is going to stand up and own
this one for them. It has to be in chookspeak before they hear it.
And it needs one of *them* to do that. They're waiting for a BigChook
amongst them to repeat what you're saying. At the moment they're just
going through the this-way-and-that ritual of eyeing each other.

I have always stated that it *will come down to a mechanism and
rotational dynamics requires no reference to either *a balooning Earth
or *a stationary thermally convecting one .The dramatic *departure
from contemporary studies *is in *taking a wider geological and
astronomical view in facilitating an overlap of geological and
astronomical disciplines via the shape of the planet and then looking
at how the fractured crust responds to the rotation of the viscous
interior just as the shape of the planet does.

Taking the patterns of structural adjustment in relation to the
Earth's rotation is precisely what all of that green index page on my
site is about. *It demonstrates that the structures that describe
rotational adjustment are the same ones that describe global
enlargement. *Combining that with an astronomical framework is the
next step, ..and I think Mars shows an indication of that in the
relation of the Valles Marineris to the Tharsis Bubble.http://users.indigo.net.au/don/mars/index.html
That 'bubble' has a direct analogue with the initiation of Pacific
Spreading on Earth, and the geological history on Earth would support
an outpouring of water (as well as LIPS lavas) at that time too.


Considering that I am absolutely bewildered at the ability to ignore a
vital component of orbital motion in order to explain why people
experience seasonal variations in daylight/darkness and subsequently
on to climatological and meteorological matters I would say that the
other major development of linking rotational geodyanamics to crustal
dynamics is unlikely.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b

The longitudinal motion of the rings with respect to the central Sun
and separate to daily rotation and rotational orientation (tilt) is a
100% observational certainty and is still not applied to the Earth,not
even when it vital for climate studies.Again,people can actually See
the motion yet manage to ignore it therefore if you are looking to
astronomers for geological guidance,you can forget it.




I would expect
objections to the generalised rules based on rotational dynamics in
stars but any objection is negated on the basis that the relationship
between fluid dynamics and sphericity is already observationally
affirmed therefore making the Earth an exception presents more
difficulties than it solves.

Sure. *That's the big problem for Plate Tectonics. *It cannot adapt
itself to Earth Rotation and the implications that follow from it in
*ANY WAY WHATSOEVER*, without negating itself entirely. * Pouf! It
goes up in smoke. *Everything about it is a dead duck. *That's why
there's the silence, and the best muster they can put forward is
George in his whisky glass. * And therein it goes right back to the
intial assumption that was made in the first place, on which the whole
edifice of Plate Tectonics is based - that the Earth cannot be getting
bigger:-http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html
That was the point of divergence from commonsense in the beginning and
the point to which geology must return. *Arthur Holmes begins his book
'*Principles of Physical Geology* *with the observation that the
Earth's geology must be interpreted in terms of its two balancing
elements, gravity and rotation, ..and the whole of his book is
testimony to how those are worked across the face of the Earth. *It's
a further interesting point that although recognising a radioactive
source for heat and convection, and getting a prize for that, it is
reported that towards the end of his life he was never able to
reconcile heat as a driver for convection, with the tectonics of
global deformation.



The usual courtesy of allowing the ad hoc mechanism of 'convection
cells' to fade or rather , the shift from a stationary Earth mechanism
to the possibilities offered *by rotational dynamics speaks more about
the modern tendency to assimilate genuine discoveries in an anonymous
way

It's called the Meme Machine. *First you create the meme, ..
outlining the glaringly obvious on grounds of rational and logical
belief, as you are doing here in respect of rotation. *Then you write
the support around it. *That way, since everybody already accepts it
(and believes it), *you don't have to formally support it peer review.
All you have to do is state it. * Support is already accomplished.
Your peer reviewers believe it too. *So you don't waste time.
Exactly the same thing happened with Plate Tectonics. *It was based on
a belief that the Earth could not be getting bigger because there was
no known way in physical theory that it could. *It doesn't matter that
*everything* written about it since is self-contradictory -http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subcrux.html
...it's not the point. *That's when there is a segue of focus from the
science to the career scientist. *If you want to make a change, you
have to do it within the system - *play them at their own game. *Have
them read what you have to say within the scope of their own belief.
Don't tell them 'the obvious', ..let them tell you. *Once it is
generally believed anyone can write any bull**** and notch it to their
'achievements'. *Nice when somebody does the hard yards for them first
though.



I am working with rotational dynamics privately and watching plate
tectonics become diluted through stationary Earth convection cells
notions,basically a cartoon mechanism applied to a genuine insight and
that is as far as I go.

I watched what Newton did to heliocentric reasoning in creating a
conclusion that the planets behave like objects on Earth (terrestrial
ballistics) and then twisted everything towards bridging that link
much like what happens with ee or convection cell conclusions.Some of
the greatest known Western insights,specifically the resolution of
retrogrades via the Earth's orbital motion,was vandalised to bump up
his 'forces' agenda at the expense of brilliant reasoning by people
like Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.

I am not dealing with reasonable people otherwise the rotational
dynamics of the Earth's annual orbital motion for climate purposes and
daily rotation for geological purposes would have been discussed years
ago.



and although an injustice *and contrary to the merit system there
are worse things going on.

"Justice and merit"? *Hah! .. You only have to listen to the likes of
Stuart and what he expouses, and juxtapose that with what these guys
say -http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/fraud.html
...to know where mainstream career interest lies. *I mean lies.
(lies)

With all due respect,the shuffling of
surface correlations or concentration on surface chemical compositions
hardly reaches the level between the largest geological
featuires,planetary shape,orientation of the Mid-Atlantic
ridge,crustal development off that ridge with an underlying mechanism
that stringle suggests a rotational component.

Geology hasn't even properly begun yet. * For this last half century
the subject has been becalmed in the doldrums of career interest.
Hopefully the younger ones looking for a better deal than is offered
by PT kindergarten 'activity', will work something out, ..but who
knows, .. geology might need to be brought under the aegis of
astronomy to allow the current lot of cranks to wither and die
gracefully. *It's an exciting time as the planets are being brought in
to the picture. *But a pity there seems to be (so far) no interest in
properly interpreting the geology of this one first.



Despite the signature of one particpant that a good idea faces strong
opposition and then becomes accepted through time is contrary to what
I have witnessed insofar as assimilation seems to be the way of
adjusting things *and although it may diminish the efforts of an
individual and the merit system, such is this era where people are so
afraid of making a mistake or offending *group *consensus that an
almost anti-investigative atmosphere prevails.

Such is the way it has become politically incorrect to offend people's
belief systems. *Right across the board there is no such thing any
more as being wrong. Everything somehow has value.

*I understand that
considerations of rotational dynamics alters the picture in such a
dramatic way that it may not be possible to slowly adjust for one very
specific reason - the internal composition and viscosity of the
Earth's interior has been designed around thermal convection whereas
rotational dynamics,at least the one which generates the 40 KM
spherical deviation would require a different internal overview of
composition\viscosity.For me it is not a dilemma as I do not consider
thermal convection whereas others may find rotational dynamics
tempting but can't adjust to that dynamic from thermal convection.

Yup the Plate Tectonics theorists have a hard time ahead of them,
trying to lug that baggage around with them and squeeze it into the
most impossible spaces (everybody believed it for nearly a century so
it must be right). *It will be a laugh to see how they try, and
certainly a spotlight on the difference between the science and the
scientist.



Big issue but enjoyable at the same time.

wrote:
On Sep 5, 6:13 pm, Andrew Usher wrote:
On Sep 5, 12:08 am, Yousuf Khan wrote:

Andrew Usher wrote:
Every solid save water ice and a few semi-metals is denser than the
liquid of the same composition, and the same temperature and pressure.
This means that a liquid other than water will not exist beneath a
solid of the same composition in a planet. A magma ocean therefore can
only freeze from the bottom up, except for the granitic crust which,
owing to its composition, is lighter than the liquid mantle. The
amount of granitic crust which could exsolve is pretty high, if the
mean composition is that of albite perhaps 20% of the mantle in the
extreme - but this would not be reached until far below the solidus.
Is the crust really all that different material from the mantle? In the
early days, I just thought the crust was just cooled mantle material.
How do they really know what the mantle is made of?
The crust is differentiated from the mantle, oceanic crust less so
than continental. We know the composition of the mantle, I think,
largely from astronomical abundances.

Anyways, what's the liquid (i.e. magma) that exists below the crust made
of? Is it liquefied crust, or liquefied mantle? If it's liquefied crust,
then isn't that another example of a liquid existing below its solid phase?
Magma is formed by partial melting of either mantle or crust. Yes, it
is
less dense than surrounding rock, which is why it moves upward.

Andrew Usher

My guess is that you have no idea of what the mantle is. Am I close to
being correct?

My second guess is that you've never completed a college course in
geology, or even own a textbook on the subject.

Am I close again?

Seriously, the dyanics of the earth's interior are likely much more
complex than a layman might assume.

Just for the record, the mantle is an interface point upon which the
less denser continental masses float. The interior of the earth is
generally considered to be a totally molten mass of mixed heavy
metals, starting with iron and going through uranium and possibly even
heavier elements.

Physicist and geologist tend to disagree on the reason why the core of
the earth remains liquid, or ever if it is liquid. Actually, finding
out exatly what is going on in the earth's interior remain today
unknown.

Harry C,

Assertions about the character of the core are based on the velocity
(speed changes and direction changes) of vibratory waves that travel
through the Earth - both natural and man produced.
FK

Andrew Usher wrote:
On Sep 5, 12:08 am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Is the crust really all that different material from the mantle? In the
early days, I just thought the crust was just cooled mantle material.
How do they really know what the mantle is made of?

The crust is differentiated from the mantle, oceanic crust less so
than continental. We know the composition of the mantle, I think,
largely from astronomical abundances.

So are you saying that the mantle more closely resembles the materials
in outer space? If so, then why is that the case when the crust is much
more closer to outer space than the mantle?

There was a story some time ago which states that some parts of the
ocean are just exposed mantle areas.

Mission to Study Earth's Gaping 'Open Wound' | LiveScience
http://www.livescience.com/environme...ed_mantle.html


Anyways, what's the liquid (i.e. magma) that exists below the crust made
of? Is it liquefied crust, or liquefied mantle? If it's liquefied crust,
then isn't that another example of a liquid existing below its solid phase?

Magma is formed by partial melting of either mantle or crust. Yes, it
is
less dense than surrounding rock, which is why it moves upward.

You could probably the same thing about water and ice. As the ice cracks
and melts, water upwells into it from below.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:

There was a story some time ago which states that some parts of the
ocean are just exposed mantle areas.

Mission to Study Earth's Gaping 'Open Wound' | LiveScience
http://www.livescience.com/environme...ed_mantle.html

Below an ocean depth of 3 km crust (basalt) formation declines.
It is replaced by formation of mantle (dunite) composed
primarily of olivine (peridot).
Below 3 km of ocean pressure silicon becomes more
soluble in water. It combines with four molecules of
water to form silicate anion which on contact with iron
or magnesium precipitates as olivine, Fe2SiO4, Mg2SiO4.
Between 2-3 km of water silicon is less soluble and combines
with only 3 molecules of water to form pyroxene FeSiO3
and MgSiO3 which are the primary ingredients of basalt.
Somewhere between 1-2 km of ocean depth silicon
no longer dissolves in water. It bubbles to the surface
where it reacts with atmospheric oxygen to form SiO2 ,
the primary component of ash and pumice rafts:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...3?img_id=17461
John Curtis

On Sep 4, 2:53 pm, Andrew Usher wrote:
Every solid save water ice and a few semi-metals is denser than the
liquid of the same composition, and the same temperature and pressure.

This means that a liquid other than water will not exist beneath a
solid of the same composition in a planet. A magma ocean therefore can
only freeze from the bottom up, except for the granitic crust which,
owing to its composition, is lighter than the liquid mantle. The
amount of granitic crust which could exsolve is pretty high, if the
mean composition is that of albite perhaps 20% of the mantle in the
extreme - but this would not be reached until far below the solidus.

Freezing from the bottom up is a much faster process than freezing
from the top down, as the heat flux from below continues to decrease
(yes, there is convection, but the effective viscosity is much higher
in a solid than a liquid), and therefore should go to completion.

Andrew Usher


The crust of our Selene/moon is much thicker and more solid/robust
than anything Earth has to offer. Our gamma saturated Selene/moon
also has a greater surface than core density, plus having been
bleeding off or leaching sodium like there’s no end in sight.

The crust of Venus most likely isn't half the thickness of Earth's,
and Mars is nearly frozen or solidified solid to the core. What's not
adding up?

I tend to favor that intelligent ETs would find our relatively passive
and extensively IR producing sun as that offering a DNA/RNA friendly
sort of solar system, especially while visiting or pillaging
magnetosphere protected planets, possibly including a few of those
impressive Jupiter or Saturn moons, and not by any means to exclude
the geothermally active plus mineral and natural energy rich worlds
having thick/robust atmospheres like Venus, of which most folks like
yourself are either mainstream petrified as dumbfounded past the point
of no return, and/or having been mainstream status quo scared spitless
if not to death of Venus.

btw, any kind of historical revision pertaining to mainstream science
is simply not permitted by those in charge. It’s a mutual cover thy
butt kind of inside policy, with more faith-based strings attached
than even you can imagine. If Hitler were still alive, he’d have one
of those big ass smiles on his face, highly appreciating as to what
his Zionist/Nazis had accomplished.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG