> 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.
In this case of continental rocks, I would tend to agree.
Simple point is, under stress rock will flow, yes?
How would you describe this flow?
If the stress is applied for billions of years.. would it stop flowing?
> Check your pulse next time and see.
My pulse is fine.
Thanks.
> > 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...
I'm illustrating materials which have rheologies that blur the demarcation of fluid and solid.
> > > > > 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"
You mean pulled 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?
That could work. It would be messy perhaps, but it would work.
(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..?
I think I'll leave that one alone.
> > 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.
Where do you get the idea plates are flat?
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.
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > Doubled in size since the Mesozoic.
> Opinion masquerading as fact.
That is not an opinion. That is fact. Except for some bits here and there, (alons some continental margins) the ocean floor represents extra surface which corresponds to doubling in size since the Mesozoic.
-- 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: > > 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.
> In this case of continental rocks, I would tend to agree.
Good.
> Simple point is, under stress rock will flow, yes?
> > No. Not until you answer the bit about the mantle slab getting > > "forced down"
> Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.
Oh, by the way Stuart, for your information, ketchup in a pot does not convect. It is the water contained in ketchup that vaporizes and makes bubbles. There is phase separation in the process.
-- 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
Why? Come on now Stuart, you're being a bit tardy here. The PT literature is replete with silly mechanisms like the continental lithosphere "forcing" the oceanic lithosphere down into the mantle. Can you explain what is meant by this, and why this particular terminology should be used? Rather than, say, including it in the terminology of 'blobbing'/ 'blobtonics'.
Stuart wrote: > 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 tes 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:
See what you and your ilk have bloody-well done - introduced into our schools! And you complain about creationists? - You forgot the fucken Tomato Sauce !! (silly goose). http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ng/isostacy2.html
On Apr 11, 8:31 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.
> Oh, by the way Stuart, for your information, ketchup in a pot does not > convect. It is the water contained in ketchup that vaporizes and makes > bubbles. There is phase separation in the process.
> > > 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.
> > In this case of continental rocks, I would tend to agree.
> Good.
> > Simple point is, under stress rock will flow, yes?
> > > No. Not until you answer the bit about the mantle slab getting > > > "forced down"
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > Oh, by the way Stuart, for your information, ketchup in a pot does not > > convect. It is the water contained in ketchup that vaporizes and makes > > bubbles. There is phase separation in the process.
> I didn't say boil it. Put a cold bath on top.
You're welcome to try it yourself Stuart. I invite you to look in detailst to what happen in your pot.
Clue: Ketchup can be described as dense solid particles in suspension in water.
-- 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 <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > Oh, by the way Stuart, for your information, ketchup in a pot does not > > convect. It is the water contained in ketchup that vaporizes and makes > > bubbles. There is phase separation in the process.
> I didn't say boil it. Put a cold bath on top.
You're welcome to try it yourself Stuart. I invite you to look in details to what happen in your pot.
Clue: Ketchup can be described as dense solid particles in suspension in water.
-- 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 12, 8:45 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote: > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Oh, by the way Stuart, for your information, ketchup in a pot does not > > > convect. It is the water contained in ketchup that vaporizes and makes > > > bubbles. There is phase separation in the process.
> > I didn't say boil it. Put a cold bath on top.
> You're welcome to try it yourself Stuart. I invite you to look in > detailst to what happen in your pot.
> Clue: Ketchup can be described as dense solid particles in suspension in > water.
No kidding. And suspensions often have nonlinear rheologies.
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > Clue: Ketchup can be described as dense solid particles in suspension in > > water.
> No kidding. And suspensions often have nonlinear rheologies.
Jeez, is that an euphemism?
There are at least two phases in your ketchup, a liquid one and a solid one. You might use ketchup as an analogy to a melt, but hardly for peridotite!
-- 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 14, 10:12 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote: > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Clue: Ketchup can be described as dense solid particles in suspension in > > > water.
> > No kidding. And suspensions often have nonlinear rheologies.
> Jeez, is that an euphemism?
> There are at least two phases in your ketchup, a liquid one and a solid > one. You might use ketchup as an analogy to a melt, but hardly for > peridotite!
The analogy is with the nonlinear rheology, not the compositional makeup.
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > The analogy is with the nonlinear rheology, not the compositional > makeup.
Hu? If I understand correctly, you claim that the nonlinear rheology of a multiphase material like ketchup would be analogous to the non linear rheology of peridotite???
-- 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 14, 9:16 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote: > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > The analogy is with the nonlinear rheology, not the compositional > > makeup.
> Hu? If I understand correctly, you claim that the nonlinear rheology of > a multiphase material like ketchup would be analogous to the non linear > rheology of peridotite???
Don't understand what your problem is.
Suppose I have two fluids, both with rheologies characterized by a power law index of 5 for example, what difference does it make if one is peridotite or the other is ketchup?
Your attempt at argument from personal incredulity noted.
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 14, 9:16 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > (Florian) wrote: > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > The analogy is with the nonlinear rheology, not the compositional > > > makeup.
> > Hu? If I understand correctly, you claim that the nonlinear rheology of > > a multiphase material like ketchup would be analogous to the non linear > > rheology of peridotite???
> Don't understand what your problem is.
> Suppose I have two fluids, both with rheologies characterized by > a power law index of 5 for example, what difference does it make > if one is peridotite or the other is ketchup?
Ketchup is multiphase material (solid+liquid), peridotite is not. the analogy is bogus.
-- 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
(Florian) wrote: > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Apr 14, 9:16 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > > (Florian) wrote: > > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > The analogy is with the nonlinear rheology, not the compositional > > > > makeup.
> > > Hu? If I understand correctly, you claim that the nonlinear rheology of > > > a multiphase material like ketchup would be analogous to the non linear > > > rheology of peridotite???
> > Don't understand what your problem is.
> > Suppose I have two fluids, both with rheologies characterized by > > a power law index of 5 for example, what difference does it make > > if one is peridotite or the other is ketchup?
> Ketchup is multiphase material (solid+liquid), peridotite is not. the > analogy is bogus.
Doesn't matter if they both behave the same way when stressed.
Silly goose.
Next, Florian will reinvent the field of fluid dynamics.
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > Ketchup is multiphase material (solid+liquid), peridotite is not. the > > analogy is bogus.
> Doesn't matter if they both behave the same way when stressed.
The analogy is bogus because in a multiphase material like ketchup, heat transfer will be different than in an solid.
-- 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 24, 10:03 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote: > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Ketchup is multiphase material (solid+liquid), peridotite is not. the > > > analogy is bogus.
> > Doesn't matter if they both behave the same way when stressed.
> The analogy is bogus because in a multiphase material like ketchup, heat > transfer will be different than in an solid.
Really? Diffusion works different in ketchup?
Simple fact is one can find regimes where the properties of ketchup remain more or less uniform i.e, the phases don't separate.
I was able to find them for corn syrup, silicon oil, all sorts of stuff.
You're better off picking on Einstein, you know, a dead guy.
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > Really? Diffusion works different in ketchup?
Than in peridotite? You bet!
> Simple fact is one can find regimes where the properties of ketchup > remain more or less uniform i.e, the phases don't separate.
<eyes rolling>
Yeah, Frozen ketchup.
> I was able to find them for corn syrup, silicon oil, all sorts of > stuff.
Corn syrup and silicon oil are made of a single phase.
-- 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 24, 10:03 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > (Florian) wrote: > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > Ketchup is multiphase material (solid+liquid), peridotite is not. the > > > > analogy is bogus.
> > > Doesn't matter if they both behave the same way when stressed.
> > The analogy is bogus because in a multiphase material like ketchup, heat > > transfer will be different than in an solid.
> Really? Diffusion works different in ketchup?
> Simple fact is one can find regimes where the properties of ketchup > remain more or less uniform i.e, the phases don't separate.
> I was able to find them for corn syrup, silicon oil, all sorts of > stuff.
What about the rocks of the mantle, Stuart? What did you find for them?
> On Apr 24, 10:03 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote: > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > Ketchup is multiphase material (solid+liquid), peridotite is not. the > > > > analogy is bogus.
> > > Doesn't matter if they both behave the same way when stressed.
> > The analogy is bogus because in a multiphase material like ketchup, heat > > transfer will be different than in an solid.
> Really? Diffusion works different in ketchup?
> Simple fact is one can find regimes where the properties of ketchup > remain more or less uniform i.e, the phases don't separate.
> I was able to find them for corn syrup, silicon oil, all sorts of > stuff.
> You're better off picking on Einstein, you know, a dead guy.
> Stuart
No offence to your perspective of geodynamics based on condiments,my analogies are drawn for observed rotational dynamics of a celestial object in a fluid state - stellar dynamics.Although I have sworn off this for the summer,it is remarkable to think that you are doing plate tectonics a favor by pushing a geostationary 'convection cell' mechanism.
Unlike other good speculative perspectives,geodynamic involvement in geological evolution is almost certain,even that guy Florian borrowed from my idea of the adaption of individual plates to planetary curvature due to the less than perfectly spherical Earth ,a feature which is due to geodynamics of differential rotation of the interior.
The worst possible outcome is that the evolution of surface features and correlations between surface features would go into trying to affirm a speculative mechanism like 'convection cells',a case where a genuinely good foundation is used to build a rickety shack rather than a palace it deserves.What is so repugnant about geodynamics to guys who inherit thr plate tectonics concept I do not know but maybe something will come to me by the end of the summer.
|
