Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 10:49 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > (Florian) wrote: > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > It is a little hard to evaluate. An uptick in Martian geological > > > activity would be quite interesting.
> > I would rather say, it is expected. > > After all, we have small planets like Mercury with evidence of > > geological activity, even tiny moon like Io with outstanding volcanix > > activity, or other moon like Ganymede, Enceladus, Ariel, Dione, Europa, > > Titania, and even better Miranda (that one is amazing, see > > <http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/BrowseTheGeologicSolarSystem/Jpg/ > > MirandaBack.jpg>), all displaying resurfacing by extension.
> > Everything point toward the same unified interpretation => Planetary > > growth.
> How about Tidal dissipation, particulalry in the case of Io.
Why don't you calculate an energy bilan to justify it? And where does the erupted material sink?
And tidal dissipation to explain the surface features of Ganymede, Ariel or Miranda!? Well, do you believe in Santa as well?
> > I'm preparing a synthesis of all the evidences refuting plate tectonics > > and directly supporting planetary growth. You will be overwhelmed.
> Well submit it for publication so we call all be overwhelmed.
Does not work like that. First I make a convincing presentation to peers, then I write the paper with those who have the balls :-) That is obviously a long term goal.
> Lotsa luck.
Hey thanx. You'll get a preprint.
-- 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 Mar 24, 10:49 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net >> (Florian) wrote: >> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: >> > > It is a little hard to evaluate. An uptick in Martian geological >> > > activity would be quite interesting.
>> > I would rather say, it is expected. >> > After all, we have small planets like Mercury with evidence of >> > geological activity, even tiny moon like Io with outstanding volcanix >> > activity, or other moon like Ganymede, Enceladus, Ariel, Dione, Europa, >> > Titania, and even better Miranda (that one is amazing, see >> > <http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/BrowseTheGeologicSolarSystem/Jpg/ >> > MirandaBack.jpg>), all displaying resurfacing by extension.
>> > Everything point toward the same unified interpretation => Planetary >> > growth.
>> How about Tidal dissipation, particulalry in the case of Io.
> Why don't you calculate an energy bilan to justify it? And where does > the erupted material sink?
> And tidal dissipation to explain the surface features of Ganymede, Ariel > or Miranda!? Well, do you believe in Santa as well?
>> > I'm preparing a synthesis of all the evidences refuting plate tectonics >> > and directly supporting planetary growth. You will be overwhelmed.
>> Well submit it for publication so we call all be overwhelmed.
> Does not work like that. First I make a convincing presentation to > peers, then I write the paper with those who have the balls :-) > That is obviously a long term goal.
>> Lotsa luck.
> Hey thanx. You'll get a preprint.
Umm, the only peers that kooks have are other kooks. Congratulations.
(Florian) wrote: > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Mar 24, 10:49 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > > (Florian) wrote: > > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > It is a little hard to evaluate. An uptick in Martian geological > > > > activity would be quite interesting.
> > > I would rather say, it is expected. > > > After all, we have small planets like Mercury with evidence of > > > geological activity, even tiny moon like Io with outstanding volcanix > > > activity, or other moon like Ganymede, Enceladus, Ariel, Dione, Europa, > > > Titania, and even better Miranda (that one is amazing, see > > > <http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/BrowseTheGeologicSolarSystem/Jpg/ > > > MirandaBack.jpg>), all displaying resurfacing by extension.
> > > Everything point toward the same unified interpretation => Planetary > > > growth.
> > How about Tidal dissipation, particulalry in the case of Io.
> Why don't you calculate an energy bilan to justify it? And where does > the erupted material sink?
What is an energy "bilan"? Stop talking French to me. I'm sure you can find any number of Papers discussing Io and this heating mechanism.
George <Geo...@george.net> wrote: > Umm, the only peers that kooks have are other kooks. Congratulations.
hey, the moron that can't read a graph is back! Guess, what? I'm author or coauthor of more peer-review papers that you have read.
-- 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 Mar 25, 1:57 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote: > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Mar 24, 10:49 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > > (Florian) wrote: > > > Your anvil+cork will have a hard time to sink, because the steeper the > > > gradient, the stronger it will be pushed up by buoyancy force.
> > It looses buoyancy as it sinks since it finds itself in denser > > material.
> And as the lithosphere is initially less dense than the mantle, it will > stay afloat.
Its not. And yet you keep saying that. By the time the lithosphere is 30 - 40My old it is denser than the mantle below it.
-- 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: > On Mar 25, 1:57 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > (Florian) wrote: > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > So slabs are actually moving up? Yes?
> > The mantle is moving up. Never heard about diapirism or plumes?
> No never. :-)
> > and if a buried slab is above the diapir, it will be pushed back to the > > surface.
> >Never heard of UHP metamorphism?
> Never in the context of an expanding earth.
Then it was high time.
-- 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: > Its not. And yet you keep saying that. By the time the lithosphere is > 30 - 40My old > it is denser than the mantle below it.
Not without full eclogitization. Eclogitization occurs only at depth >45 km and is only partial.
-- 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
In article <kVcGj.25697$r76.10...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
"George" <Geo...@george.net> wrote: > lol. Why don't we have a Chez Watt award on this newsgroup? This would be > a great place to start?
> George
The Chez Watt server would crash from the moment it got started from having to deal with the backlog of Florian's and Findlay's misguided certainty, Turcaud's pomposity, Guth's ignorance, and Oriel's frightened indignation.
I suggest a different name, though. Perhaps the "No Schist!" award? Maybe we could come up with something based on the three types of rock: sedentary, metaphorical, and ingenious.
-- Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
(Florian) wrote: > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > You're concentrating on the forces on the object.
> Of course I do. Those forces are at the origin of the motion of the > object.
> > I'm talking about the fluid motions induced by the buoyant > > object.
> Cheap tactic. Apple and orange. There would be no fluid motion if there > was no buoyancy force from the start.
> My statement was that the steeper the lithostatic gradient, the stronger > the buoyancy force. That was all my point. So when you claimed that the > pressure gradient is irrelevant to buoyancy, don't be surprise if I jump > at your throat.
I didn't say vertical pressure gradient was irrelevant to buoyancy.
> > Again, you seem to think I have a problem with this > > basic description you gave above. I don't. I generally don't argue > > with 2000 year old principles.
> Guess, what? I knew it. But you are the one who wants to play dumb with > stupid examples.
No, sometimes I have hard time understanding what you mean.
> > However Archimedes couldn't tell > > you how fast an object should sink, that required a knowledge > > of fluid mechanics he did not possess.
> I assure you that for the same fluid, if the gradient of pressure is > steeper,
This illustrates why I have trouble understanding you. If we are talking *for the same fluid* why would the pressure gradient get steeper?
dP/dz = -Rg
Right? If G is constant and R is constant then the pressure gradient is constant.
Now if R gets larger with depth, then the pressure gradient increases with depth. The sinking object encounters greater upward force.
>then the buoyancy force on an immersed object is stronger; > if > the force is stronger, then the acceleration is larger, and it will > logically move up faster.
> > What I'm telling you is that the fluid > > motions (which is what I'm interested in, not the force balance on > > the block itself) induced by the sinking object are driven by pressure > > variations not governed by dP/dz = -gR where R is the density of the fluid.
> > dP/dz = -gR is a condition for hydrostatic equilibrium in a plane > > fluid layer. > > If you don't believe me consult Turcotte and Schubert or any other > > book > > that works through the equations governing Rayleigh-Benard convection. > > In fact, go through Chandraseakhar's stability analysis of the > > Rayleigh-Benard > > problem.
> Believing is useless. Understanding is better. > I understood why you mean, but it is irrelevant to my initial claim:
> "Of course, if the anvil is not dense enough compared to the cork, then > it will float. Especially when there is a steep pressure gradient."
No.
So long as the anvil is denser than the surface it will sink. How far it will sink depends on the nature of the pressure gradient. You are so imprecise at times, it makes communication difficult.
If the density of the fluid is constant, a denser object will sink all the way to the bottom.
If the density of the fluid is increasing with depth resulting in a *steepening gradient * then object may stop sinking at some point.
> The claim was about the stronger buoyancy force in relation to a steeper > pressure gradient.
Thats fine. But if the object's density exceeds the surface density it will sink. How much depends on the stratification of the fluid layer.
> > I cannot be any more clear than this. You need to show me > > that the term -gRo, the lithostatic pressure gradient is present > > in the eqs of motion. The pressure that is set up by the motion is > > commonly referred to as the *dynamic pressure* and that is what > > you wind up in the eqs of motion when you through the derivation.
> Again that is irrelevant to my initial claim,
Its quite relevant when were talking about subduction.
let me repeat the logic of
> my claim so that you can keep it in your head for more than a lapse:
> If the gradient of pressure is steeper, then the buoyancy force on an > immersed object of lesser density is stronger, and a stronger downward > force is necessary to make it sinks.
> I guess you agree with that statement, right?
Why not? But your initial claim had to do with subduction.
> In article <kVcGj.25697$r76.10...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, > "George" <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>> lol. Why don't we have a Chez Watt award on this newsgroup? This would >> be >> a great place to start?
>> George
> The Chez Watt server would crash from the moment it got started from > having to deal with the backlog of Florian's and Findlay's misguided > certainty, Turcaud's pomposity, Guth's ignorance, and Oriel's frightened > indignation.
> I suggest a different name, though. Perhaps the "No Schist!" award? > Maybe we could come up with something based on the three types of rock: > sedentary, metaphorical, and ingenious.
> -- > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com > "When you post sewage, don't blame others for > emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
On Mar 25, 3:10 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote: > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > Its not. And yet you keep saying that. By the time the lithosphere is > > 30 - 40My old > > it is denser than the mantle below it.
> Not without full eclogitization. Eclogitization occurs only at depth >45 > km and is only partial.
The lithosphere gets to be about 100km think. Also, it is on average roughly 600-700K cooler than the upper mantle. That buys you another 1.5%- 2%.
Some things in here may make sense, but then... Statements like the below give me pause with respect to this paper.
"The high velocity of slab detected by tomography could be related not to its higher density but to its higher rigidity and viscosity"
For starters tomography of slabs is done using P-waves. The celerity of a P-wave is given by [ (K+4/3U)/R) ]^1/2 where U is the shear rigidity, K is the incompressibility and R is the density. So one wonders how in the world high velocity of the slab could *ever* be do to a simple change in density? Greater density by itself means slower.
Indeed, the speed of seismic waves increases in slabs because they are stiffer; temperature has a greater effect on rigidity than it does on density. You'll also notice that there is no term for viscosity in the wave speed formula. The slab has higher viscosity because it is cooler. The viscosity increases with decreasing temperature. It is the higher stiffness that allows one to put bounds on the density through an appropriate equation of state. There is simply no question that the slab is cooler than the surrounding mantle and hence more dense. How much more may be arguable, but there is no question that it is more.
Maybe they meant to say "lower temperature" and "not higher density" but it still wouldn't make sense. What would imbue these roughly tabular regions with special stiffness and viscosity?
I also take issue with his statement that mantle densities are "quite speculative". I disagree, they are well constrained by modeling the earth's free oscillations. In fact people are using free oscillations to work out some of the three dimensional structure of density variations in the mantle. As far as I know, the mean radial density profile for the Earth is known to a couple of percent if not better.
These folks seem downgrade the energetics driving subduction, hey and thats fine it can be refreshing to read a completely alternative POV, but for some reason they are unable to quantify this force driving tectonics that arises from the Earth's rotation.
Something of a double standard to me.
Stuart
I think the desire to downplay the buoyancy of subducted slabs in driving tectonics may have got the best of them.
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > (Florian) wrote: > > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote: > > > Umm, the only peers that kooks have are other kooks. Congratulations.
> > hey, the moron that can't read a graph is back! > > Guess, what? I'm author or coauthor of more peer-review papers that you > > have read.
> Like what?
> If you're that proud of your work, lets see some.
If you're clever enough, you will find it in a snap.
-- 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
Thanx to Dietmar Muller and his collaborators. They recently updated the data. Still some glitches through.
Well, let's see how your interprete this map. What did happen there?
PS: Georgie, you're welcome to give your point of view...
-- 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
George <Geo...@george.net> wrote: > Does MAD Magazine offer peer review? Wonders never cease to amaze.
Why don't you use your brain to figure it out?
-- 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 Mar 26, 6:23 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> These folks seem downgrade the energetics driving subduction, hey and > thats fine > it can be refreshing to read a completely alternative POV, but for > some reason they are > unable to quantify this force driving tectonics that arises from the > Earth's rotation.
> Something of a double standard to me.
> Stuart
> I think the desire to downplay the buoyancy of subducted slabs in > driving tectonics may have > got the best of them.
I am the only person drawing on observed rotational dynamics in terms of the correlation between Equatorial speed,differential rotation and deviation from sphericity.As there is no reason to believe that the Earth's 40 km deviation is exempt from the generalised dynamics of rotating celestial objects and specifically differential rotation,whatever way you put it,if differential rotation is the determining factor for spherical deviation,it follows that the latitude differential shear bands and the internal composition and viscosity of the rotating internal fluid of the Earth is responsible for plate motion.
If there is an objection to drawing on stellar rotational dynamics as a base for generalised rotational dynamics then you and your colleagues have to find a clear and alternative mechansim for spherical deviation that does not include differential rotation and subsequently exempt geodynamics from geological evolutionary processes.
I am content enough to see a ridiculous expanding Earth notion contend with an equally inept geostationary thermally driven convection cell notion.The actual mechanism is a stable and enjoyable geodynamics based on observations of stellar rotational dynamics and the exposed fluid exteriors which provide clues to the internal structure,composiotion and viscosity of the Earth.
An expanding Earth is not a dynamic,it is a ridiculous conclusion for people who know no better,you,on the other hand,manage to drag plate tectonics down from providing excellent outlines in a phony jargon fight with your ee opponents.
> On Mar 25, 3:10 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote: > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Its not. And yet you keep saying that. By the time the lithosphere is > > > 30 - 40My old > > > it is denser than the mantle below it.
> > Not without full eclogitization. Eclogitization occurs only at depth >45 > > km and is only partial.
> The lithosphere gets to be about 100km think. Also, it is on average > roughly 600-700K > cooler than the upper mantle. That buys you another 1.5%- 2%.
> Some things in here may make sense, but then... > Statements like the below give me pause with respect to this paper.
> "The high velocity of slab detected by tomography could be related not > to its higher > density but to its higher rigidity and viscosity"
> For starters tomography of slabs is done using P-waves. The celerity > of > a P-wave is given by [ (K+4/3U)/R) ]^1/2 where U is the shear > rigidity, K is the incompressibility > and R is the density. So one wonders how in the world high velocity of > the slab could *ever* be > do to a simple change in density? Greater density by itself means > slower.
> Indeed, the speed of seismic waves increases in slabs because they are > stiffer; temperature > has a greater effect on rigidity than it does on density. You'll also > notice that there is no > term for viscosity in the wave speed formula. The slab has higher > viscosity because it is cooler. > The viscosity increases with decreasing temperature. It is the higher > stiffness that allows one to
That should read "larger rigidity", for that matter the incompressibility also increases with decreasing temp.
> put bounds on the density through an appropriate equation of state. > There is simply no question > that the slab is cooler than the surrounding mantle and hence more > dense. How much more may be > arguable, but there is no question that it is more.
> Maybe they meant to say "lower temperature" and "not higher density" > but it still wouldn't make sense. > What would imbue these roughly tabular regions with special stiffness > and viscosity?
> I also take issue with his statement that mantle densities are "quite > speculative". I disagree, they > are well constrained by modeling the earth's free oscillations. In > fact people are using free oscillations > to work out some of the three dimensional structure of density > variations in the mantle. As far as I know, > the mean radial density profile for the Earth is known to a couple of > percent if not better.
> These folks seem downgrade the energetics driving subduction, hey and > thats fine > it can be refreshing to read a completely alternative POV, but for > some reason they are > unable to quantify this force driving tectonics that arises from the > Earth's rotation.
> Something of a double standard to me.
> Stuart
> I think the desire to downplay the buoyancy of subducted slabs in > driving tectonics may have > got the best of them.
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:51:57 -0700 (PDT), in alt.august, oriel36
> <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Mar 28, 12:23 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:16:50 -0000, in alt.august, Skywise
> >> >Just like always, your response is just a repeat of your drivel. > >> >And on top of it, you had to post it twice.
> >> >Word salad. It's what's for dinner.
> >> Is this the same oriel that 12 years ago thought the face on mars was > >> part of a hidden city?
> >> That oriel was a very stupid git, too. Is it a co-incidence?
> >> -- > >> Ak'toh'di
> >18 years ago I was working on stellar evolution and the existence of > >two large external rings and one smaller interersecting ring in terms > >of the geometry of stellar effeciency,the one and only time I took a > >copyright out.About 14 years ago (1994),they photographed SN1987A -
> >I would not even dream of presenting that work in this toxic > >atmosphere today considering just how poor the standard is,you being > >no better or worse than the next and perhaps typical of empirical > >mediocrity.You have the whole solar system and the Universe to discuss > >and this is the only thing you have to say.As for Mars,empiricists > >mangled the main Keplerian diagram which compares the orbit of Mars > >with that of the Earth and I assure you that the approach you > >numbskulls take is no better or worse than the approach you take to > >axial rotation of the Earth,its orbital motion,geodynamics and many > >other things.
> >I discuss geodynamics as it applies to geological evolution,the fact > >that nobody else even considers it is a clear enough statement as to > >the dismal situation that exists with you being no better or worse > >than the next.
> Yep you were the same City/Face of mars" Kook, weren't you?
> -- > Ak'toh'di- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Who is this that grovels at my feet ? -
"You shall bow before his feet; You shall lick the dust for meat; And tho' you cannot love, but hate, Shall be beggars at Love's gate." William Blake
Thank you for demonstrating how the mind can turn into a cistern when there is not enough fight in you to surmount the ultra-secular empirical ideology,all that is left is a life negating opinions such as your profile shows.
For those of faith,the terrestrial and celestial arena is a fountain and I am too busy to consider much else only how principles from geology may fit with the astronomical motions of the Earth for the sheer enjoyment of it and for open discussion .Return to your abortion/ atheism forums which look like hell to me.,the only comment worth noting being something Oscar Wilde once said and is even more true today -
"Like all poetical natures he loved ignorant people. He knew that in the soul of one who is ignorant there is always room for a great idea. But he could not stand stupid people, especially those who are made stupid by education: people who are full of opinions not one of which they even understand, a peculiarly modern type,summed up by Christ when he describes it as the type of one who has the key of knowledge, cannot use it himself, and does not allow other people to use it, though it may be made to open the gate of God's Kingdom.." Oscar Wilde
It is a multi-faceted planet,solar system and Universe,if you can't discuss it then all you can do is help my case and thank you for that.
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > My statement was that the steeper the lithostatic gradient, the stronger > > the buoyancy force. That was all my point. So when you claimed that the > > pressure gradient is irrelevant to buoyancy, don't be surprise if I jump > > at your throat.
> I didn't say vertical pressure gradient was irrelevant to buoyancy.
You said that lithostatic pressure gradient was irrelevant to buoyancy. Lithostatic pressure is vertical. I asked you many times if you were so sure of that. And what did you do? you call me a "silly goose". Who looks like a "silly goose" now?
> > I assure you that for the same fluid, if the gradient of pressure is > > steeper,
> This illustrates why I have trouble understanding you. If we are > talking *for the same fluid* why would the pressure gradient get steeper?
> dP/dz = -Rg
> Right? If G is constant and R is constant then the pressure gradient > is constant.
Right, not in this case.
> Now if R gets larger with depth, then the pressure gradient increases > with depth. > The sinking object encounters greater upward force.
Yes.
There is another alternative and you won't like it: Pressure is building up in the mantle because new material is emplaced. I know that you think it is totally bullshit, but in the paradigm of planetary growth, it does make a lot of sense.
> >then the buoyancy force on an immersed object is stronger;
> > if > > the force is stronger, then the acceleration is larger, and it will > > logically move up faster.
> Now you lost me.
Well, nothing special. It does not apply to subduction, but for an immersed object: Steeper gradient => Larger force => larger acceleration => faster motion.
> > Believing is useless. Understanding is better. > > I understood why you mean, but it is irrelevant to my initial claim:
> > "Of course, if the anvil is not dense enough compared to the cork, then > > it will float. Especially when there is a steep pressure gradient."
> No.
> So long as the anvil is denser than the surface it will sink. How far > it will sink depends on the nature of the pressure gradient. You are > so > imprecise at times, it makes communication difficult.
> If the density of the fluid is constant, a denser object will sink all > the way to the bottom.
> If the density of the fluid is increasing with depth resulting in > a *steepening gradient * then object may stop sinking at some point.
Of course I agree with what's above.
But my point was that "if the anvil is not dense enough compared to the cork, then it will float. Especially when there is a steep pressure gradient."
The last sentence means that if you really want to bury a piece of lithsophere despite its positive buoyancy, for example using an hypothetic "ridge push", then you have to push very, very hard. Look completely irrealistic to me.
Is that clearer now?
-- 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
|
