|
|
sci.geo.geology |
On Apr 10, 5:33 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > > > You seem confused. Bingham plastic do not behave like fluids in absence > > > > There are many materials for which the definitions are blurred. > > > Like solid rock? ...(being a fluid on geological time scales). Maybe > > 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 > > > > That is the point of the Bingham rheology, and that is why > > > I'm with Florian on this one. Where do we find this stuff? > > The Bingham rheology was used to describe muli-component fluids > Is that right. Well, there's a big difference between something 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 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 Didn't mean to sprain your brain. > > > > > Why do I have the bad impression that you know zero example of thermal > > > > 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. > > > > Fine. > > > > Take a can of ketchup. > > > (I'm with Stuart here - When it's been sitting around for a while it > > > > 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 > > The issue here is convection in general. Among other things, ketchup > Ductile flow in rocks only has a loose analogy with a fluid. And so > > > (As if we didn't know.) Why do you persist with your nonsense > > ? > > Where did that come from? > Gravity. It's all got something to do with gravity. But not as > > Do Planets float (with negative buoyancy of course) in the > > > > > It is how science work, at least in my field which is not fucked up like > > > > 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 > > > The 'Physics' bit is not serving the 'geo' bit very well though, is > > Didn't we point out how in many places your model predicts the wrong > (Where did that come from?) No you most certainly did not. You(s) > > >And insists a flat-bottomed pan is the > > There aren't any. > Oh yes there are. > > > Can we have an advance on your admission that you don't have a clue > > Silly. I still think its buoyancy and I think it will most often > So what do you have to say to the popular myth that the (lighter) > > What is interesting is how the large viscosity > > Does that help? > No. Not until you answer the bit about the mantle slab getting > > Surely you don't mean that somehow > > Where in this do you need to shake the ketchup? > What? Do you take yours into the kitchen and heat it up rather than (I'm trying to envisage here the > > Yeild stress is yeild stress. One way of achieving the yeild > > > > while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous > > > 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 Roundness and spin are what it's > > > It's an observable fact. (Unless you keep your eyes below the horizon > > Then you should have no trouble presenting unambiguous > Doubled in size since the Mesozoic. <snip> Stuart
> Stuart wrote: In this case of continental rocks, I would tend to agree.
> > 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.
> > > > > of stress. By definition, they are not fluids.
> > > this could be extended to mean that on astronomical time scales it
> > > behaves like a gas. What do you think Stuart?
> see fits the bill exactly.. Google it up
> <"Crustal deformation" boudinage>
> > > > it is applied to a variety of materials.
> > which would not suffer permanent deformation until a yield criterion
> > was reached after which viscous flow would ensue.
> 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.
it stop flowing?
> Check your pulse next time and see. My pulse is fine.
I'm illustrating materials which have rheologies that blur the
> mentioning any names) who said you can take analogies too far. Wonder
> who that was...
demarcation of
fluid and solid.
You mean pulled down?
> > > > > convection in a Bingham plastic like material? Tss tss...
> > > > > You claim there is thermal convection in Bingham plastic, You show me a
> > > > > real life example.
> > > does behave like solid rock.. I think this must be what Stuart
> > > means...)
> > > 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. "
> > or cookie dough, don't have radiogenic heating, pressure induced
> > phase changes.. are not self-gravitating etc.
> 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.
> > > 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.
> simple flotation. Or is it?
> > > 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...)
> > > > > geophysics.
> > > > regarding
> > > > both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline
> > > > rocks
> > > 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.
> > sense of spin?
> must have forgotten.
> > > way to go instead of a round Earth. Have the spatial/ volumetric
> > > conundrums of convection in a round Earth never occurred to you?
> "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...)
> > > about how subduction gets going?
> > happen where there is pronounced lateral heterogeneity like
> > at continental margins.
> continental lithosphere "forces" the (denser) oceanic lithosphere
> down?http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/fails.html
> > of the lithosphere traps that buoyancy.
> "forced down"
That could work. It would be messy perhaps, but it would work.
> > > y9ou have to shake the Earth and turn the heat up? What's your
> > > 'convectional rationale' for your tomato ketchup in a pan model?
> just bang the bottom of the bottle?
> trendy little rubber number you have on whilst freeing the spirit of I think I'll leave that one alone.
> convecting ketchup. Why don't you just grunt and sock it
> one, ..like me..?
Where do you get the idea plates are flat?
> > stress is to pound the bottle furiously. Is that the only way?
> > > > measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.
> flat-bottomed pans getting bigger.
> all about. Opinion masquerading as fact.
> > > or your head in the sand.)
> > measurements showing the Earth is growing.