> > > > > 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.

> > 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.

> So what do you have to say to the popular myth that the (lighter)
> continental lithosphere "forces" the (denser) oceanic lithosphere
> down?http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/fails.html

> > 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?

> > 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.

> > > 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.