> > > Maybe. Maybe not. I agree that how subduction gets going is an > > > interesting problem.
> > Really? Now this is news. What problem do you see, Stuart? Is it > > convection drives subduction, ..or subduction drives convection?
> > There's a nice simple framework for your answer. Which one would you > > like to begin with? (..since both of them seem to figure in Plate > > Tectonics as equally correct).
> What? No answer, Stuart?
> Hah! Not only have you no answer to how subduction beginshttp://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/9a8d3634bd3a8471 > you do not understand the priorities of the parameters controlling the > process you profess to support, you are drunk on the foetid fugh that > rises (by convection) from the overheated malodourous swamp of Plate > Tectonics.
> Tell you what, Stu, .. .. Since you began all this by being the > arrogant bully you are, and taking a gratuitous swipe at my poor one- > legged butt when I asked a simple question, ...and since you are > seriously continuing to support this stupid analogy of hot air rising > as the reason for keeping the whole schemozzle of Plate Tectonics on > the road even though you or anyone else cannot tell how it begins, nor > can offer any reason for the many anomalies, conundrums and outright > contradictions that follow from attributing convection as a driver for > a process you know nothing about (how it begins), I'll offer you a > page on my website and you can fill it out (/in) (as you prefer)as we > go along and things occur to you.
> I'll provide a hand-hold and help you. Like Florian says there's > surely plenty in the archives we can use . Now I can't say fairer > than that as an aid to fair-handedness can I? Aidan there's even > complaining that you're not answering my posts...
> Come on Stuart, subduction is the key to your whole argument for Plate > Tectonics and you freely admit you have no answer to how it can > begin. What's going on? If you can't answer that one you plainly > need some help.
The fractured crust profiles the less than spherical Earth.
Create an ice sheet across spherical objects like two bowling balls of different sizes ( not dramatically different).Remove the ice sheet from smaller ball and place it on the bigger ball and then moive it across to meet the ice sheet of the bigger ball.Then you get a rough and general idea of subduction,of course you need to recognise the shape of the Earth and that it is rotating to produce such an analogy.
Geodynamics is an incredibly productive way to approach geological evolution.
Have a nice summer and keep that Earth balooning at all costs,if anything,it is keeping the geostationary guys from going too far with their 'convection cell mechanism.
oriel36 wrote: > On Apr 7, 2:46 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > don findlay wrote: > > > Stuart wrote:
> > > > Maybe. Maybe not. I agree that how subduction gets going is an > > > > interesting problem.
> > > Really? Now this is news. What problem do you see, Stuart? Is it > > > convection drives subduction, ..or subduction drives convection?
> > > There's a nice simple framework for your answer. Which one would you > > > like to begin with? (..since both of them seem to figure in Plate > > > Tectonics as equally correct).
> > What? No answer, Stuart?
> > Hah! Not only have you no answer to how subduction beginshttp://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/9a8d3634bd3a8471 > > you do not understand the priorities of the parameters controlling the > > process you profess to support, you are drunk on the foetid fugh that > > rises (by convection) from the overheated malodourous swamp of Plate > > Tectonics.
> > Tell you what, Stu, .. .. Since you began all this by being the > > arrogant bully you are, and taking a gratuitous swipe at my poor one- > > legged butt when I asked a simple question, ...and since you are > > seriously continuing to support this stupid analogy of hot air rising > > as the reason for keeping the whole schemozzle of Plate Tectonics on > > the road even though you or anyone else cannot tell how it begins, nor > > can offer any reason for the many anomalies, conundrums and outright > > contradictions that follow from attributing convection as a driver for > > a process you know nothing about (how it begins), I'll offer you a > > page on my website and you can fill it out (/in) (as you prefer)as we > > go along and things occur to you.
> > I'll provide a hand-hold and help you. Like Florian says there's > > surely plenty in the archives we can use . Now I can't say fairer > > than that as an aid to fair-handedness can I? Aidan there's even > > complaining that you're not answering my posts...
> > Come on Stuart, subduction is the key to your whole argument for Plate > > Tectonics and you freely admit you have no answer to how it can > > begin. What's going on? If you can't answer that one you plainly > > need some help.
> The fractured crust profiles the less than spherical Earth.
> Create an ice sheet across spherical objects like two bowling balls > of different sizes ( not dramatically different).Remove the ice sheet > from smaller ball and place it on the bigger ball and then moive it > across to meet the ice sheet of the bigger ball.Then you get a rough > and general idea of subduction,of course you need to recognise the > shape of the Earth and that it is rotating to produce such an analogy.
Sorry Oriel, .. the curvature of the arcs is the wrong way
> Geodynamics is an incredibly productive way to approach geological > evolution.
> Have a nice summer and keep that Earth balooning at all costs,if > anything,it is keeping the geostationary guys from going too far with > their 'convection cell mechanism.
oriel36 wrote: > On Apr 7, 10:14 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Apr 6, 9:00 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 7, 6:51 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 6, 12:56 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > > > (Florian) wrote: > > > > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > The Bingham plastic rheology was developed by Bingham ( who else?) to > > > > > > explain the > > > > > > behavior of certain fluids like slurries, fluids which under low > > > > > > stresses will behave rigidly > > > > > > then loose strength under high stress and suffer permanent continuous > > > > > > deformation.
> > > > > > I suggest you do more digging.
> > > > > Oh please, I know what it is. > > > > > I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.
> > > > Well if you know what it is...
> > > > Then put some in a pot. Put it on the stove, heat, observe.
> > > > What is it you're expecting exactly?
> > > > <snip>
> > > > Stuart
> > > No offence but how do you correlate a flat bottomed pot on a stove > > > with the rotating and spherical Earth .
> > I don't. He asked me for an example of a plastic rheology convecting.
> > I hope he finds something edible. I've always said the best > > experiments are the > > ones you can eat.
> > > What you and your colleagues are doing is weakening the plate tectonic > > > concept even though there are only scattered clues as to the forces > > > and effects,compositions and viscosity involved.Drawing conclusions > > > based entirely on surface correlations can only get you so far and > > > then turn counter-productive if you settle on a conclusion such as a > > > 'convection cell' mechanism and that it turn allows an irritating > > > situation to emerge where idiotice notions such as the ee conclusion > > > finds a foothold.
> > Wow. Even Oriel figures EE is idiotic.
> > <snip>
> > Stuart- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> In all honesty,the convection cell/ee debate is like watching flat > Earthers challenge geostationary Earthers,it does not matter which is > which,the result is as dismal as it is predictable.I have always said > that I am content to leave you to your own devices but the chances are > that only the most indifferent are not curious about geodynamical > influences on the motion of the Earth's crust.
> I find 'convection cell' adherents worse than ee proponents insofar as > they inherit the genuine reasoning which lead to plate tectonics as a > prooductive working principle but are now undermining the concept with > details of the interior,structure,composition and viscosity based on > an ad hoc mechanism of thermally driven convection.
> So 'even' Oriel gets that ee is idiotic is followed by geostationary > 'convection cells'.I would say it will take a few months before the ee > guys will start hammering you about the internal mechanism and I do > not mind that you will come off looking worse,I do mind that you are > taking plate tectonics as a working principle with you.I leave you to > what I am sure for you is a titanic struggle with ee guys
I don't think Stuart (in his situation) will be very happy at your mention of the Titanic, Gerald, ..given that a sinking one is his idea of a driving mechanism ... and the rubber number he's decked himself out in doesn't really equip him for sinking... It's more of a floatie... http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/floaties.html
> but I do > look forward to genuine people actually picking up geodynamical > influences as they know exist in the matter of geology.
> After a incredible 9 moinths with more detail added to geodynamical > influences and the addition of an overlooked orbital component I look > forwrd to a genuine break that is good for everyone.Don't cut each > other to pieces ,do you hear,and keep the discussions technical.
> oriel36 wrote: > > On Apr 7, 2:46 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > don findlay wrote: > > > > Stuart wrote:
> > > > > Maybe. Maybe not. I agree that how subduction gets going is an > > > > > interesting problem.
> > > > Really? Now this is news. What problem do you see, Stuart? Is it > > > > convection drives subduction, ..or subduction drives convection?
> > > > There's a nice simple framework for your answer. Which one would you > > > > like to begin with? (..since both of them seem to figure in Plate > > > > Tectonics as equally correct).
> > > What? No answer, Stuart?
> > > Hah! Not only have you no answer to how subduction beginshttp://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/9a8d3634bd3a8471 > > > you do not understand the priorities of the parameters controlling the > > > process you profess to support, you are drunk on the foetid fugh that > > > rises (by convection) from the overheated malodourous swamp of Plate > > > Tectonics.
> > > Tell you what, Stu, .. .. Since you began all this by being the > > > arrogant bully you are, and taking a gratuitous swipe at my poor one- > > > legged butt when I asked a simple question, ...and since you are > > > seriously continuing to support this stupid analogy of hot air rising > > > as the reason for keeping the whole schemozzle of Plate Tectonics on > > > the road even though you or anyone else cannot tell how it begins, nor > > > can offer any reason for the many anomalies, conundrums and outright > > > contradictions that follow from attributing convection as a driver for > > > a process you know nothing about (how it begins), I'll offer you a > > > page on my website and you can fill it out (/in) (as you prefer)as we > > > go along and things occur to you.
> > > I'll provide a hand-hold and help you. Like Florian says there's > > > surely plenty in the archives we can use . Now I can't say fairer > > > than that as an aid to fair-handedness can I? Aidan there's even > > > complaining that you're not answering my posts...
> > > Come on Stuart, subduction is the key to your whole argument for Plate > > > Tectonics and you freely admit you have no answer to how it can > > > begin. What's going on? If you can't answer that one you plainly > > > need some help.
> > The fractured crust profiles the less than spherical Earth.
> > Create an ice sheet across spherical objects like two bowling balls > > of different sizes ( not dramatically different).Remove the ice sheet > > from smaller ball and place it on the bigger ball and then moive it > > across to meet the ice sheet of the bigger ball.Then you get a rough > > and general idea of subduction,of course you need to recognise the > > shape of the Earth and that it is rotating to produce such an analogy.
> Sorry Oriel, .. the curvature of the arcs is the wrong way
> > Geodynamics is an incredibly productive way to approach geological > > evolution.
> > Have a nice summer and keep that Earth balooning at all costs,if > > anything,it is keeping the geostationary guys from going too far with > > their 'convection cell mechanism.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You asked how subduction gets going and relative to the thickness of the crust and the Earth's diameter,the ice sheet in relation to the bowling ball would be much smaller that 1 mm,at least if the crust thickness is relaively small at the subduction zones -
Considering the geodynamics which create a global 40km difference between polar and equatorial diameters,I have little difficulty using the same mechanism to shunt the plates around as a major factor in the evolution of surface features.Of course an analogy can only get you so far and I am under no pretenses as to what must be a very complex network of influences going on but they do not include thermally driven convection cells and they certainly have nothing to do with ee.
Plate tectonics remains a remarkable concept but it appears that this generation cannot handle it or rather does not have the ability to act on the clues it leaves for geodynamics and visa versa.I worked on it on and off for 4 years and it gets better with refinements .not some much throwing the kitchen sink at it to arrive at a conclusion but just allowing geodynamics to dictate its own outlines as a working principle.
You should be happy, this year the geostationary guys ran for cover and decided that ee was a worthy concept to oppose after all and no doubt the summer will pass with abstracts flying right,left and center to promote a geostationary notion over a balooning Earth one.In the end,it all comes down to the internal mechanism which sets the criteria for composition and viscosity of the planet's interior and from there to the dynamics of crustal motion,I don't have to do anything considering more considering it is a meta-argument which links planetary shape and crustal motion via a common rotational mechanism.Until somebody wakes up.I really have to do nothing but wait and enjoy the summer.
> Stuart wrote: > > So your saying the evidence for an expanding earth is as strong > > as the evidence that the Earth is round? > Yes.
fr En avez vous la moindre preuve ?
en Do you have any evidence?
[you]
> will go down in the archives of Google
fr Merci de rappeler que vos milliers d'articles de baragouinage sont archivés pour toujours.
en Thank you for remind of the forever archiving of your thousand of gibbering articles.
(snip ranting) -- (...) conquis toute la géologie. Toute ? Non ! Car quelques irréductibles partisans de Samuel Carey résistent encore et toujours (...)
> Were you not taught to respect PhDs at your University?
So what? The Bogdanov brothers were crank as soon as their phd thesis. Jacques Benveniste and Claude Allègre were even more that phd, but they were crank later. -- (...) conquis toute la géologie. Toute ? Non ! Car quelques irréductibles partisans de Samuel Carey résistent encore et toujours (...)
On Apr 7, 3:24 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote: > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Oh please, I know what it is. > > > I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.
> > Well if you know what it is...
> > Then put some in a pot.
> Some of what?
Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property of a Bingham plastic.
oriel36 wrote: > On Apr 7, 6:33 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > oriel36 wrote: > > > On Apr 7, 2:46 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > > don findlay wrote: > > > > > Stuart wrote:
> > > > > > Maybe. Maybe not. I agree that how subduction gets going is an > > > > > > interesting problem.
> > > > > Really? Now this is news. What problem do you see, Stuart? Is it > > > > > convection drives subduction, ..or subduction drives convection?
> > > > > There's a nice simple framework for your answer. Which one would you > > > > > like to begin with? (..since both of them seem to figure in Plate > > > > > Tectonics as equally correct).
> > > > What? No answer, Stuart?
> > > > Hah! Not only have you no answer to how subduction beginshttp://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/9a8d3634bd3a8471 > > > > you do not understand the priorities of the parameters controlling the > > > > process you profess to support, you are drunk on the foetid fugh that > > > > rises (by convection) from the overheated malodourous swamp of Plate > > > > Tectonics.
> > > > Tell you what, Stu, .. .. Since you began all this by being the > > > > arrogant bully you are, and taking a gratuitous swipe at my poor one- > > > > legged butt when I asked a simple question, ...and since you are > > > > seriously continuing to support this stupid analogy of hot air rising > > > > as the reason for keeping the whole schemozzle of Plate Tectonics on > > > > the road even though you or anyone else cannot tell how it begins, nor > > > > can offer any reason for the many anomalies, conundrums and outright > > > > contradictions that follow from attributing convection as a driver for > > > > a process you know nothing about (how it begins), I'll offer you a > > > > page on my website and you can fill it out (/in) (as you prefer)as we > > > > go along and things occur to you.
> > > > I'll provide a hand-hold and help you. Like Florian says there's > > > > surely plenty in the archives we can use . Now I can't say fairer > > > > than that as an aid to fair-handedness can I? Aidan there's even > > > > complaining that you're not answering my posts...
> > > > Come on Stuart, subduction is the key to your whole argument for Plate > > > > Tectonics and you freely admit you have no answer to how it can > > > > begin. What's going on? If you can't answer that one you plainly > > > > need some help.
> > > The fractured crust profiles the less than spherical Earth.
> > > Create an ice sheet across spherical objects like two bowling balls > > > of different sizes ( not dramatically different).Remove the ice sheet > > > from smaller ball and place it on the bigger ball and then moive it > > > across to meet the ice sheet of the bigger ball.Then you get a rough > > > and general idea of subduction,of course you need to recognise the > > > shape of the Earth and that it is rotating to produce such an analogy.
> > Sorry Oriel, .. the curvature of the arcs is the wrong way
> > > Geodynamics is an incredibly productive way to approach geological > > > evolution.
> > > Have a nice summer and keep that Earth balooning at all costs,if > > > anything,it is keeping the geostationary guys from going too far with > > > their 'convection cell mechanism.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> You asked how subduction gets going and relative to the thickness of > the crust and the Earth's diameter,the ice sheet in relation to the > bowling ball would be much smaller that 1 mm,at least if the crust > thickness is relaively small at the subduction zones -
> Considering the geodynamics which create a global 40km difference > between polar and equatorial diameters,I have little difficulty using > the same mechanism to shunt the plates around as a major factor in the > evolution of surface features.
But they don't move anywhere. *No Shunting*. The transform faults grow in a direction towards the ridge. http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/cornflakes.html This simple fact is the reason why Plate Tectonics has to make the ridiculous assumption hat these structure are all somehow formed in place *BEFORE* movement on them occurs:- http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/transoffsets.html In your nomenclature this is the equivalent of maintaining that for Plate Tectonics to work the Earth must be flat and stationary. . It's OK for those convectioneers like our Rubber Duck there http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/rubber.html But surely you don't want to be in the same boat with them on this one?
> Of course an analogy can only get you so > far and I am under no pretenses as to what must be a very complex > network of influences going on but they do not include thermally > driven convection cells and they certainly have nothing to do with ee.
I don't see what's your problem. It's just getting bigger - just like (empricially) it's spinning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody seems to know how gravity really works, nor its relation to spin, but the two seem to be tied.
> Plate tectonics remains a remarkable concept but it appears that this > generation cannot handle it or rather does not have the ability to act > on the clues it leaves for geodynamics and visa versa.I worked on it > on and off for 4 years and it gets better with refinements .not some > much throwing the kitchen sink at it to arrive at a conclusion but > just allowing geodynamics to dictate its own outlines as a working > principle.
I quite agree, ..Spin is the leg into doing that finessing of 'plate tectonics', but in doing that work they will have to abandon convection as any driver for crustal deformation.
> You should be happy, this year the geostationary guys ran for cover > and decided that ee was a worthy concept to oppose after all
Yes, ..that's funny, .. Thanks to Florian on that one. (resisting here temptations about 'rubber') :-)
> and no > doubt the summer will pass with abstracts flying right,left and center > to promote a geostationary notion over a balooning Earth one.In the > end,it all comes down to the internal mechanism which sets the > criteria for composition and viscosity of the planet's interior and > from there to the dynamics of crustal motion,I don't have to do > anything considering more considering it is a meta-argument which > links planetary shape and crustal motion via a common rotational > mechanism.Until somebody wakes up.I really have to do nothing but wait > and enjoy the summer.
Differential spin is important latitudinally of course in the architecture of growth of the transform faults of the ocean floors - and Plate Tectonics has no problem with that in their dealings with Euler poles. They just don't make too much of a song and dance about it because it leads them up the expansion path. But it also is important in the evolution of the crust - mantle interface as manifest in the Western Pacific, and the repetitions of Eastern Asia, from the Himalayas to the Russian Peninsula and west to the Urals, but also in the *Big Swivel* of the Americas about the Caribbean Pivot. Which is pretty well the whole Global surface. Africa? Yes, ..there as well.
Stuart wrote: > On Apr 7, 3:24 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > (Florian) wrote: > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > Oh please, I know what it is. > > > > I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.
> > > Well if you know what it is...
> > > Then put some in a pot.
> > Some of what?
> Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property > of a Bingham plastic.
> Lets start there.
> I'm tired having to do your homework for you.
> Stuart
That's worth a quote Stuart, .. I think we have to put that into your web page - as rubber support.
Stuart wrote: > On Apr 6, 12:56 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > (Florian) wrote: > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > The Bingham plastic rheology was developed by Bingham ( who else?) to > > > explain the > > > behavior of certain fluids like slurries, fluids which under low > > > stresses will behave rigidly > > > then loose strength under high stress and suffer permanent continuous > > > deformation.
> > > I suggest you do more digging.
> > Oh please, I know what it is. > > I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.
> Well if you know what it is...
> Then put some in a pot. Put it on the stove, heat, observe.
> What is it you're expecting exactly?
> <snip>
> Stuart
Stuart stonewalls, ..because he doesn't have a clue where this vortex he has entered by his own paddling, is leading him...
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property > of a Bingham plastic.
You seem confused. Bingham plastic do not behave like fluids in absence of stress. By definition, they are not fluids. Why do I have the bad impression that you know zero example of thermal convection in a Bingham plastic like material? Tss tss...
> Lets start there.
> I'm tired having to do your homework for you.
Lazy guy. You claim there is thermal convection in Bingham plastic, You show me a real life example. It is how science work, at least in my field which is not fucked up like geophysics.
It is that simple.
Hurry up, I'm impatient.
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
>> 1. the mathematics predicts that IF and ONLY IF the mass >> increases will the moon collide with the earth.
> Facts is that the moon is receeding despite the earth is growing. Try to > find the physics to explain it instead of wasting your time in denying.
>> 2. the null test is no threatening approaches by the moon.
>> and Yes I can post the mathematics.
> Why am I not impressed... ah yeah, I know. "mathematics" is not a kind > of magic. It is just a tool. Only cranks are impressed by maths.
the problem with the earth expanding is the lack of mass increase. hence the earth cannot be expanding. the celestial theorums apply even to an expanding earth. differential equations are common place. the simplification is to not obfuscate the issue.
as a note anyone interested in science will look at the mathematics. florian really is not interested in science and will of course take the quackery route. josephus
josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote: > the problem with the earth expanding is the lack of mass increase. > hence the earth cannot be expanding.
Duh, the growth is observed, there is no lack of mass increase, it must increase. But there is a lack of an explanation for the phenomenon.
> the celestial theorums apply > even to an expanding earth. differential equations are common place. > the simplification is to not obfuscate the issue.
I'm still waiting for your derivation of GR (or at least Newton's law) with mass and momentum being time dependent. Have fun!
> as a note anyone interested in science will look at the mathematics. > florian really is not interested in science
Warf. I've no lessons to receive from an amateur.
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
On Apr 7, 9:07 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote: > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property > > of a Bingham plastic.
> You seem confused. Bingham plastic do not behave like fluids in absence > of stress. By definition, they are not fluids.
There are many materials for which the definitions are blurred.
That is the point of the Bingham rheology, and that is why it is applied to a variety of materials.
> Why do I have the bad impression that you know zero example of thermal > convection in a Bingham plastic like material? Tss tss...
I'm not responsible for the impressions held by idiots.
> > Lets start there.
> > I'm tired having to do your homework for you.
> Lazy guy. > You claim there is thermal convection in Bingham plastic, You show me a > real life example.
Fine.
Take a can of ketchup.
Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.
> It is how science work, at least in my field which is not fucked up like > geophysics.
You don't have a field.
And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature regarding both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline rocks while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.
Stuart wrote: > On Apr 7, 9:07 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > (Florian) wrote: > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property > > > of a Bingham plastic.
> > You seem confused. Bingham plastic do not behave like fluids in absence > > of stress. By definition, they are not fluids.
> There are many materials for which the definitions are blurred.
Like solid rock? ...(being a fluid on geological time scales). Maybe this could be extended to mean that on astronomical time scales it behaves like a gas. What do you think Stuart?
> That is the point of the Bingham rheology, and that is why > it is applied to a variety of materials.
I'm with Florian on this one. Where do we find this stuff?
> > Why do I have the bad impression that you know zero example of thermal > > convection in a Bingham plastic like material? Tss tss...
> I'm not responsible for the impressions held by idiots.
> > > Lets start there.
> > > I'm tired having to do your homework for you.
> > Lazy guy. > > You claim there is thermal convection in Bingham plastic, You show me a > > real life example.
> Fine.
> Take a can of ketchup.
(I'm with Stuart here - When it's been sitting around for a while it does behave like solid rock.. I think this must be what Stuart means...)
> Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.
Mmm. And then what? Is this supposed to be your analogy for thermal convection Stuart? http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/corpuscles.html (...the bit where that fellow Anderson you were talking about says:- "Mantle convection is quite different from the usual pot-on-a-stove metaphor. "
(As if we didn't know.) Why do you persist with your nonsense Stuart. If you're going to be the front-man, behave like one. Tell us in terms gravitas how gravity exerts a force at a distance, for example. Do Planets float (with negative buoyancy of course) in the stellar medium? forcing the aether downwards into large convection currents? Or does the Aether force the planets 'upwards' holding them at a distance? Is the Aether layered? Stuff like that would be interesting at least. But blood in a bottle, .. (Where's my wooden stake and my silver hammer...)
> > It is how science work, at least in my field which is not fucked up like > > geophysics.
> You don't have a field.
(Come on Stuart, ..you can do better.) (Possibly.)
> And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature > regarding > both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline > rocks
The 'Physics' bit is not serving the 'geo' bit very well though, is it? ...when it can disregard something as fundamental as the global scale inscription of geological structure symmetrical with the Earth's spin over geological time. And insists a flat-bottomed pan is the way to go instead of a round Earth. Have the spatial/ volumetric conundrums of convection in a round Earth never occurred to you?
Can we have an advance on your admission that you don't have a clue about how subduction gets going? Surely you don't mean that somehow y9ou have to shake the Earth and turn the heat up? What's your 'convectional rationale' for your tomato ketchup in a pan model?
> while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous > measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.
An observation that the earth is round round doesn't need a theory. It's an observable fact. (Unless you keep your eyes below the horizon or your head in the sand.) Likewise the fact that it has got bigger over time is an observable geological fact - unless you're so myopic or your interests in gifts that pay the rent outweigh you observational responsibilities as a scientist.
Why would you need an experiment to simulate an observation that the Earth is round. Experiments are for theories, not facts. Can't you tell the difference?
Stuart wrote: > On Apr 7, 9:07 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > (Florian) wrote: > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property > > > of a Bingham plastic.
> > You seem confused. Bingham plastic do not behave like fluids in absence > > of stress. By definition, they are not fluids.
> There are many materials for which the definitions are blurred.
> That is the point of the Bingham rheology, and that is why > it is applied to a variety of materials.
> > Why do I have the bad impression that you know zero example of thermal > > convection in a Bingham plastic like material? Tss tss...
> I'm not responsible for the impressions held by idiots.
> > > Lets start there.
> > > I'm tired having to do your homework for you.
> > Lazy guy. > > You claim there is thermal convection in Bingham plastic, You show me a > > real life example.
> Fine.
> Take a can of ketchup.
> Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.
> > It is how science work, at least in my field which is not fucked up like > > geophysics.
> You don't have a field.
> And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature > regarding > both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline > rocks > while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous > measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.
> Stuart
Let's see if Stuart can rise above the plimsol line inscibed on his floating leg, and take over captaincy of HMS Plate Tectonics.
On Apr 8, 2:47 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> Stuart wrote: > > On Apr 7, 9:07 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > > (Florian) wrote: > > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property > > > > of a Bingham plastic.
> > > You seem confused. Bingham plastic do not behave like fluids in absence > > > of stress. By definition, they are not fluids.
> > There are many materials for which the definitions are blurred.
> Like solid rock? ...(being a fluid on geological time scales). Maybe > this could be extended to mean that on astronomical time scales it > behaves like a gas. What do you think Stuart?
You know better than this.
You talk about Boudins.
Ever wonder how the space fills in between Boudins?
> > That is the point of the Bingham rheology, and that is why > > it is applied to a variety of materials.
> I'm with Florian on this one. Where do we find this stuff?
The Bingham rheology was used to describe muli-component fluids which would not suffer permanent deformation until a yield criterion was reached after which viscous flow would ensue.
There are a number of materials that have this property.
Cookie dough. Poke it gently it bounces back.
Put it under a rolling pin, watch it flow.
Like I said. The best experiments are the ones you can eat.
> > > Why do I have the bad impression that you know zero example of thermal > > > convection in a Bingham plastic like material? Tss tss...
> > I'm not responsible for the impressions held by idiots.
> > > > Lets start there.
> > > > I'm tired having to do your homework for you.
> > > Lazy guy. > > > You claim there is thermal convection in Bingham plastic, You show me a > > > real life example.
> > Fine.
> > Take a can of ketchup.
> (I'm with Stuart here - When it's been sitting around for a while it > does behave like solid rock.. I think this must be what Stuart > means...)
> > Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.
> Mmm. And then what? Is this supposed to be your analogy for thermal > convection Stuart?http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/corpuscles.html > (...the bit where that fellow Anderson you were talking about says:- > "Mantle convection is quite different from the usual pot-on-a-stove > metaphor. "
The issue here is convection in general. Among other things, ketchup or cookie dough, don't have radiogenic heating, pressure induced phase changes.. are not self-gravitating etc.
> (As if we didn't know.) Why do you persist with your nonsense > Stuart. If you're going to be the front-man, behave like one. Tell > us in terms gravitas how gravity exerts a force at a distance, for > example.
?
Where did that come from?
Do Planets float (with negative buoyancy of course) in the
> stellar medium? forcing the aether downwards into large convection > currents? Or does the Aether force the planets 'upwards' holding them > at a distance? Is the Aether layered? Stuff like that would be > interesting at least. But blood in a bottle, .. (Where's my wooden > stake and my silver hammer...)
> > > It is how science work, at least in my field which is not fucked up like > > > geophysics.
> > You don't have a field.
> (Come on Stuart, ..you can do better.) (Possibly.)
> > And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature > > regarding > > both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline > > rocks
> The 'Physics' bit is not serving the 'geo' bit very well though, is > it? ...when it can disregard something as fundamental as the global > scale inscription of geological structure symmetrical with the Earth's > spin over geological time.
Didn't we point out how in many places your model predicts the wrong sense of spin?
>And insists a flat-bottomed pan is the > way to go instead of a round Earth. Have the spatial/ volumetric > conundrums of convection in a round Earth never occurred to you?
There aren't any.
> Can we have an advance on your admission that you don't have a clue > about how subduction gets going?
Silly. I still think its buoyancy and I think it will most often happen where there is pronounced lateral heterogeneity like at continental margins.
What is interesting is how the large viscosity of the lithosphere traps that buoyancy.
Does that help?
Surely you don't mean that somehow
> y9ou have to shake the Earth and turn the heat up? What's your > 'convectional rationale' for your tomato ketchup in a pan model?
Where in this do you need to shake the ketchup?
Yeild stress is yeild stress. One way of achieving the yeild stress is to pound the bottle furiously. Is that the only way?
> > while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous > > measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.
> An observation that the earth is round round doesn't need a theory.
An observation that the Earth is round has nothing to do with EE.
> It's an observable fact. (Unless you keep your eyes below the horizon > or your head in the sand.)
Then you should have no trouble presenting unambiguous measurements showing the Earth is growing.
> Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.
Are you kidding? ketchup is NOT a Bingham plastic! It is not solid neither under stress.
"ketchup science" is really all you can do?
> > It is how science work, at least in my field which is not fucked up like > > geophysics.
> You don't have a field.
I do. You would know it you knew how to use google scholar. But I don't expect to much from you, nor from Georgie or the like. Vous êtes des mauvais (I let you find the translation that should be easy for a smart ass).
> And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature > regarding > both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline > rocks
Whatever. The studies of creep are never done under the condition of THERMAL CONVECTION. A stress is sufficient for creep, no need for heat transfer, and this is exactly what happens during planetary growth. The excess of material produced "somewhere" in the planet is pushing material toward the surface (diapirism, plume) and it turns into volcanism, uplift and nappes.
> while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous > measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.
More ducking:
Plate tectonics is a bad model that can't explain patterns of ocean floor like this one:
The planetary growth model can explain it easily. This is due to migration of material toward the surface during the growth.
I mean, you have to be an idiot to believe that the concept of subduction, with its silly slab pull/ridge push, makes any sense for the very local Amirante trench:
The only explanation that makes sense is that local migration of mantle induces uplift and overthrusting of nearby lithosphere, thus forming charcateristic arced nappe and trench along the front of migration.
Worse, plate tectonics completely ignore evidences that refute it totally, like the position of the Zodiac fan. It is junk science and should go where it belongs to: a trash.
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
On Apr 9, 12:40 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote: > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > Fine.
> > Take a can of ketchup.
> > Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.
> Are you kidding? ketchup is NOT a Bingham plastic! It is not solid > neither under stress.
then why doesn't it just pour out of the ketchup bottle? (Heinz that is)
There are plenty of other examples. Toothpaste
Try one.
Consult the food science/technology literature.
> "ketchup science" is really all you can do?
> > > It is how science work, at least in my field which is not fucked up like > > > geophysics.
> > You don't have a field.
> I do. You would know it you knew how to use google scholar. But I don't > expect to much from you, nor from Georgie or the like. Vous êtes des > mauvais (I let you find the translation that should be easy for a smart > ass).
You're no science scholar period.
> > And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature > > regarding > > both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline > > rocks
> Whatever. The studies of creep are never done under the condition of > THERMAL CONVECTION.
Irrelevant.
> A stress is sufficient for creep, no need for heat transfer,
I never claimed anything else silly goose
However, thermal buoyancy can generate the necessary stress. As you understand above, that is all that is necessary.
>and this is > exactly what happens during planetary growth.
there has been no such thing as planetary growth since 4.5 billion years ago.
If so, you'll need to explain why the Earth's complement Pb, U ratios falls on the meteorite isochron.
Oops.. yet more special pleading for you.
>The excess of material > produced "somewhere"
That would be fantasy land.
> in the planet is pushing material toward the > surface (diapirism, plume) and it turns into volcanism, uplift and
*turns it into* ? Why should material be pushed to the surface in the form of plumes? Why not a gentle swelling of the planet?
> nappes.
> > while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous > > measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.
> More ducking:
> Plate tectonics is a bad model that can't explain patterns of ocean > floor like this one:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > then why doesn't it just pour out of the ketchup bottle? (Heinz that > is)
Last time I checked, mine was pouring out.
> There are plenty of other examples. Toothpaste
Jeeez... the thermal convection of tooth paste... Geophysicists do really have fun.
Hey stuart, I ask for a peer review paper describing thermal convection in a real Bingham plastic like material. Is is that that hard to find for you?
> > I do. You would know it you knew how to use google scholar. But I don't > > expect to much from you, nor from Georgie or the like. Vous êtes des > > mauvais (I let you find the translation that should be easy for a smart > > ass). > You're no science scholar period.
Typical of a guy in deep denial. And you don't know how to use Google Scholar either. For your information, I get 48 hits.
> > > And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature > > > regarding > > > both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline > > > rocks
> > Whatever. The studies of creep are never done under the condition of > > THERMAL CONVECTION.
> Irrelevant.
Logic, Stuart style: Thermal convection conditions are irrelevant to study creep induces by thermal convection.
> > A stress is sufficient for creep, no need for heat transfer,
> I never claimed anything else silly goose
You're the one introducing creep during thermal convection, ok, but why can't you give me some good reviews on the subject?
> However, thermal buoyancy can generate the necessary stress. > As you understand above, that is all that is necessary.
Ok, but what difference of density is sufficient to generate sufficient stress and creep of viscous material (about 10E20 Pa.s)? Is 1% enough? I remind you that gravity is the weakest of all forces.
I'll add that creep costs a lot of energy when conditions are far from melting conditions. You need to break then reform bonds/interactions, and this is more difficult far from the melting point.
Anyway, I simply ask for a good review that compares the efficiency of heat transport by creep induced by thermal buoyancy to conduction, in highly viscous material where interactions are very strong and hard to break.
> >and this is > > exactly what happens during planetary growth.
> there has been no such thing as planetary growth since 4.5 billion > years ago.
It's written all over the surface. Do you need a rosetta stone or new glasses?
> If so, you'll need to explain why the Earth's complement Pb, U > ratios falls on the meteorite isochron.
In science, there is always a good explanation. For example, either there is nucleosynthesis of Pb or U but those elements do not migrate to the surface or there is no nucleosynthesis of Pb or U at all.
> >The excess of material > > produced "somewhere"
> That would be fantasy land.
You would know it, you live there.
> > in the planet is pushing material toward the > > surface (diapirism, plume) and it turns into volcanism, uplift and
> *turns it into* ? Why should material be pushed to the surface in > the form of plumes? Why not a gentle swelling of the planet?
Because this is not what we observe silly goose! Did you forget that observations are fundamental in science?
> > More ducking:
> > Plate tectonics is a bad model that can't explain patterns of ocean > > floor like this one:
You should read it. You would figure out it can't explain what happens globally in the Philippines. Well, after all, if you're smarter than anybody else, you're welcome to explain what does happen there.
And don't forget to explain the cases that you innocently snipped: the Amirante trench and the position of the Zodiac fan.
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
Stuart wrote: > On Apr 8, 2:47 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > Stuart wrote: > > > On Apr 7, 9:07 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > > > (Florian) wrote: > > > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property > > > > > of a Bingham plastic.
> > > > You seem confused. Bingham plastic do not behave like fluids in absence > > > > of stress. By definition, they are not fluids.
> > > There are many materials for which the definitions are blurred.
> > Like solid rock? ...(being a fluid on geological time scales). Maybe > > this could be extended to mean that on astronomical time scales it > > behaves like a gas. What do you think Stuart?
> You know better than this.
> You talk about Boudins.
> Ever wonder how the space fills in between Boudins?
Not any more. Crustal scale boudinage for the global tectonics we see fits the bill exactly.. Google it up <"Crustal deformation" boudinage>
> > > That is the point of the Bingham rheology, and that is why > > > it is applied to a variety of materials.
> > I'm with Florian on this one. Where do we find this stuff?
> The Bingham rheology was used to describe muli-component fluids > which would not suffer permanent deformation until a yield criterion > was reached after which viscous flow would ensue.
Is that right. Well, there's a big difference between something behaving LIKE a fluid and it BEING one. Solid rock, despite it deforming into more contortions than an Indian/ Egyptial/ Balinese Belly Dancer, is not a fluid. Crystal gliding and accompanying recrystallisation and movement on faults/ microfaults (and the language to conveniently describe it) is NOT *fluid* flow. You're only fooling yourself if you think you can apply the same equations of state. What's more, all of that stuff, all those contortions that makes you think lovingly of belly dancing, is *stress* induced, more than it is temperature induced. Check your pulse next time and see.
> There are a number of materials that have this property.
> Cookie dough. Poke it gently it bounces back.
> Put it under a rolling pin, watch it flow.
> Like I said. The best experiments are the ones you can eat.
What about Flaky Pastry? There was a bloke on this newsgroup (not mentioning any names) who said you can take analogies too far. Wonder who that was...
> > > > Why do I have the bad impression that you know zero example of thermal > > > > convection in a Bingham plastic like material? Tss tss...
> > > I'm not responsible for the impressions held by idiots.
> > > > > Lets start there.
> > > > > I'm tired having to do your homework for you.
> > > > Lazy guy. > > > > You claim there is thermal convection in Bingham plastic, You show me a > > > > real life example.
> > > Fine.
> > > Take a can of ketchup.
> > (I'm with Stuart here - When it's been sitting around for a while it > > does behave like solid rock.. I think this must be what Stuart > > means...)
> > > Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.
> > Mmm. And then what? Is this supposed to be your analogy for thermal > > convection Stuart?http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/corpuscles.html > > (...the bit where that fellow Anderson you were talking about says:- > > "Mantle convection is quite different from the usual pot-on-a-stove > > metaphor. "
> The issue here is convection in general. Among other things, ketchup > or cookie dough, don't have radiogenic heating, pressure induced > phase changes.. are not self-gravitating etc.
Ductile flow in rocks only has a loose analogy with a fluid. And so does your 'floatation' of the crust only have limited application. If dense bits of crust 'sank' through less dense (hotter), then the ocean floors would sink Holus Bolus, ...just right where they are.. There would be geysers of lava everywhere. And the Russian and Indian and other traps too would have sank out of sight long ago. Forget cookie dough.
> > (As if we didn't know.) Why do you persist with your nonsense > > Stuart. If you're going to be the front-man, behave like one. Tell > > us in terms gravitas how gravity exerts a force at a distance, for > > example.
> ?
> Where did that come from?
Gravity. It's all got something to do with gravity. But not as simple flotation. Or is it?
> Do Planets float (with negative buoyancy of course) in the > > stellar medium? forcing the aether downwards into large convection > > currents? Or does the Aether force the planets 'upwards' holding them > > at a distance? Is the Aether layered? Stuff like that would be > > interesting at least. But blood in a bottle, .. (Where's my wooden > > stake and my silver hammer...)
> > > > It is how science work, at least in my field which is not fucked up like > > > > geophysics.
> > > You don't have a field.
> > (Come on Stuart, ..you can do better.) (Possibly.)
> > > And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature > > > regarding > > > both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline > > > rocks
> > The 'Physics' bit is not serving the 'geo' bit very well though, is > > it? ...when it can disregard something as fundamental as the global > > scale inscription of geological structure symmetrical with the Earth's > > spin over geological time.
> Didn't we point out how in many places your model predicts the wrong > sense of spin?
(Where did that come from?) No you most certainly did not. You(s) must have forgotten.
> >And insists a flat-bottomed pan is the > > way to go instead of a round Earth. Have the spatial/ volumetric > > conundrums of convection in a round Earth never occurred to you?
> There aren't any.
Oh yes there are. "Mantle convection is quite different from the usual pot-on-a-stove metaphor." http://www.mantleplumes.org/Convection.html ...So the hot, flowing fluid just goes along the top of the mantle (as ocean floor) (which is why there are no earthquakes because it's nice and ductile - because it's flowing) till it meets a continent, when it gets cold enough to be pushed down and sink - then it goes down into the hot mantle (where there are lots of earthquakes - because it's a cold slab (by now) grinding its way down...)
> > Can we have an advance on your admission that you don't have a clue > > about how subduction gets going?
> Silly. I still think its buoyancy and I think it will most often > happen where there is pronounced lateral heterogeneity like > at continental margins.
> What is interesting is how the large viscosity > of the lithosphere traps that buoyancy.
> Does that help?
No. Not until you answer the bit about the mantle slab getting "forced down"
> Surely you don't mean that somehow > > y9ou have to shake the Earth and turn the heat up? What's your > > 'convectional rationale' for your tomato ketchup in a pan model?
> Where in this do you need to shake the ketchup?
What? Do you take yours into the kitchen and heat it up rather than just bang the bottom of the bottle? (I'm trying to envisage here the trendy little rubber number you have on whilst freeing the spirit of convecting ketchup. Why don't you just grunt and sock it one, ..like me..?
> Yeild stress is yeild stress. One way of achieving the yeild > stress is to pound the bottle furiously. Is that the only way?
> > > while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous > > > measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.
> > An observation that the earth is round round doesn't need a theory.
> An observation that the Earth is round has nothing to do with EE.
Oh yes it most certainly does. We couldn't possibly have plates or flat-bottomed pans getting bigger. Roundness and spin are what it's all about.
> > It's an observable fact. (Unless you keep your eyes below the horizon > > or your head in the sand.)
> Then you should have no trouble presenting unambiguous > measurements showing the Earth is growing.
Doubled in size since the Mesozoic. Unambiguous. Unless of course you *assume* that it can't have, and finagle some preposterous alternative, ..like they unashamedly did in the beginning:- http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html ...and everyone followed like sheep.
You know, Stuart, ...really, ..beyond the first page I don't know why anybody would want to. It offends sensibilities in logic at every turn. It really does stand as an indictment to everything that's hyp[ed up as science. A far more interesting study is why so many people go along with it. As the originator of the plaudit "The gift that keeps on giving" maybe you could elucidate.
>> > Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.
>> Are you kidding? ketchup is NOT a Bingham plastic! It is not solid >> neither under stress.
>then why doesn't it just pour out of the ketchup bottle? (Heinz that >is)
>There are plenty of other examples. Toothpaste
>Try one.
>Consult the food science/technology literature.
>> "ketchup science" is really all you can do?
>> > > It is how science work, at least in my field which is not fucked up like >> > > geophysics.
>> > You don't have a field.
>> I do. You would know it you knew how to use google scholar. But I don't >> expect to much from you, nor from Georgie or the like. Vous êtes des >> mauvais (I let you find the translation that should be easy for a smart >> ass).
>You're no science scholar period.
Only services to show how piss poor are your research skills
|
