Why Earth's mantle is solid
Andrew Usher
liquid of the same composition, and the same temperature and pressure.
This means that a liquid other than water will not exist beneath a
solid of the same composition in a planet. A magma ocean therefore can
only freeze from the bottom up, except for the granitic crust which,
owing to its composition, is lighter than the liquid mantle. The
amount of granitic crust which could exsolve is pretty high, if the
mean composition is that of albite perhaps 20% of the mantle in the
extreme - but this would not be reached until far below the solidus.
Freezing from the bottom up is a much faster process than freezing
from the top down, as the heat flux from below continues to decrease
(yes, there is convection, but the effective viscosity is much higher
in a solid than a liquid), and therefore should go to completion.
Andrew Usher
Uncle Al
>
> Every solid save water ice and a few semi-metals is denser than the
> liquid of the same composition, and the same temperature and pressure.
Bullshit. Silicon, bismuth, clathrates... have denser liquids than
solids. Ditto silicate melts vs. zeolites. Metal-organic
frameworks. It's a trivial thing to do given crystal structure.
> This means that a liquid other than water will not exist beneath a
> solid of the same composition in a planet. A magma ocean therefore can
> only freeze from the bottom up,
Since it can only cool from the top down you might want to rethink
that. Hawaii is frozen at the top and liquid at the base.
> except for the granitic crust which,
> owing to its composition, is lighter than the liquid mantle. The
> amount of granitic crust which could exsolve is pretty high, if the
> mean composition is that of albite perhaps 20% of the mantle in the
> extreme - but this would not be reached until far below the solidus.
>
> Freezing from the bottom up is a much faster process than freezing
> from the top down, as the heat flux from below continues to decrease
> (yes, there is convection, but the effective viscosity is much higher
> in a solid than a liquid), and therefore should go to completion.
So sad.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Andrew Usher
> Andrew Usher wrote:
>
> > Every solid save water ice and a few semi-metals is denser than the
> > liquid of the same composition, and the same temperature and pressure.
>
> Bullshit. Silicon, bismuth, clathrates... have denser liquids than
> solids. Ditto silicate melts vs. zeolites. Metal-organic
> frameworks. It's a trivial thing to do given crystal structure.
Silicon and bismuth are the semi-metals I was thinking of, along with
Ge, Sb, As, graphite. I consider clathrates a type of water ice.
Zeolites
are not equilibrium phases and can't coexist with a melt.
Saying it's 'trivial' is pointless; of course it's a function of
crystal
structure.
> > This means that a liquid other than water will not exist beneath a
> > solid of the same composition in a planet. A magma ocean therefore can
> > only freeze from the bottom up,
>
> Since it can only cool from the top down you might want to rethink
> that.
So? Convection is faster than heat loss in a liquid.
> Hawaii is frozen at the top and liquid at the base.
Hawaii, like all volcanoes, has liquid under it but that's only
possible locally as the magma is less dense than the surrounding
rock. This is simply hydrostatic equilibrium.
> > except for the granitic crust which,
> > owing to its composition, is lighter than the liquid mantle. The
> > amount of granitic crust which could exsolve is pretty high, if the
> > mean composition is that of albite perhaps 20% of the mantle in the
> > extreme - but this would not be reached until far below the solidus.
>
> > Freezing from the bottom up is a much faster process than freezing
> > from the top down, as the heat flux from below continues to decrease
> > (yes, there is convection, but the effective viscosity is much higher
> > in a solid than a liquid), and therefore should go to completion.
>
> So sad.
I don't think you're really this stupid.
Andrew Usher
Yousuf Khan
> Every solid save water ice and a few semi-metals is denser than the
> liquid of the same composition, and the same temperature and pressure.
>
> This means that a liquid other than water will not exist beneath a
> solid of the same composition in a planet. A magma ocean therefore can
> only freeze from the bottom up, except for the granitic crust which,
> owing to its composition, is lighter than the liquid mantle. The
> amount of granitic crust which could exsolve is pretty high, if the
> mean composition is that of albite perhaps 20% of the mantle in the
> extreme - but this would not be reached until far below the solidus.
Is the crust really all that different material from the mantle? In the
early days, I just thought the crust was just cooled mantle material.
How do they really know what the mantle is made of?
Anyways, what's the liquid (i.e. magma) that exists below the crust made
of? Is it liquefied crust, or liquefied mantle? If it's liquefied crust,
then isn't that another example of a liquid existing below its solid phase?
Yousuf Khan
Andrew Usher
> Andrew Usher wrote:
> > Every solid save water ice and a few semi-metals is denser than the
> > liquid of the same composition, and the same temperature and pressure.
>
> > This means that a liquid other than water will not exist beneath a
> > solid of the same composition in a planet. A magma ocean therefore can
> > only freeze from the bottom up, except for the granitic crust which,
> > owing to its composition, is lighter than the liquid mantle. The
> > amount of granitic crust which could exsolve is pretty high, if the
> > mean composition is that of albite perhaps 20% of the mantle in the
> > extreme - but this would not be reached until far below the solidus.
>
> Is the crust really all that different material from the mantle? In the
> early days, I just thought the crust was just cooled mantle material.
> How do they really know what the mantle is made of?
The crust is differentiated from the mantle, oceanic crust less so
than continental. We know the composition of the mantle, I think,
largely from astronomical abundances.
> Anyways, what's the liquid (i.e. magma) that exists below the crust made
> of? Is it liquefied crust, or liquefied mantle? If it's liquefied crust,
> then isn't that another example of a liquid existing below its solid phase?
Magma is formed by partial melting of either mantle or crust. Yes, it
is
less dense than surrounding rock, which is why it moves upward.
Andrew Usher
hhc...@yahoo.com
My guess is that you have no idea of what the mantle is. Am I close to
being correct?
My second guess is that you've never completed a college course in
geology, or even own a textbook on the subject.
Am I close again?
Seriously, the dyanics of the earth's interior are likely much more
complex than a layman might assume.
Just for the record, the mantle is an interface point upon which the
less denser continental masses float. The interior of the earth is
generally considered to be a totally molten mass of mixed heavy
metals, starting with iron and going through uranium and possibly even
heavier elements.
Physicist and geologist tend to disagree on the reason why the core of
the earth remains liquid, or ever if it is liquid. Actually, finding
out exatly what is going on in the earth's interior remain today
unknown.
Harry C,
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
news:f344cf94-1a2c-4231...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The "I don't think you're really this stupid" statement is an example of a
conditional variation on argumentum ad homenim. Statistically, I don't need
to see the rest of the thesis to be fairly certain that the author of that
statement has insufficient supporting facts - so if I'm pressed for time and
I catch you making a false argument, I'll just assume you're in error and
move on. Here's why:
The verity of a conclusion may well be independent of the supporting
argument's fallaciousness, but nearly all of the times when people resort to
fallacy, they generally only do so when there is a glaring lack of
supporting evidence. Do a bit of reading (actually, quite a bit of reading!)
and you too will discover that the fallacy is only very rarely used in
association with an otherwise genuinely valid thesis.
Try again...
--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! Conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Essays: http://timothycasey.info; http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Technical: http://geologist-1011.com; http://web-design-1011.com
Andrew Usher
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> > > > Freezing from the bottom up is a much faster process than freezing
> > > > from the top down, as the heat flux from below continues to decrease
> > > > (yes, there is convection, but the effective viscosity is much higher
> > > > in a solid than a liquid), and therefore should go to completion.
>
> > > So sad.
>
> > I don't think you're really this stupid.
>
> > Andrew Usher
>
> The "I don't think you're really this stupid" statement is an example of a
> conditional variation on argumentum ad homenim.
What do you think his 'So sad' was?
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Physicist and geologist tend to disagree on the reason why the core of
> the earth remains liquid, or ever if it is liquid. Actually, finding
> out exatly what is going on in the earth's interior remain today
> unknown.
The Earth's interior is far from unknown. Learn something
before posting.
Andrew Usher
Sam Wormley
How about that liquid outer core of iron and sulfur that can not
support shear waves.
And that "plastic" Asthenosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asthenosphere
"The upper part of the asthenosphere is believed to be the zone
upon which the great rigid and brittle lithospheric plates of
the Earth's crust move about. Due to the temperature and pressure
conditions in the asthenosphere, rock becomes ductile, moving at
rates of deformation measured in cm/yr over lineal distances
eventually measuring thousands of kilometers. In this way, it
flows like a convection current, radiating heat outward from the
Earth's interior. Above the asthenosphere, at the same rate of
deformation, rock behaves elastically and, being brittle, can
break, causing faults. The rigid lithosphere is thought to "float"
or move about on the slowly flowing asthenosphere, creating the
movement of crustal plates described by Plate tectonics theory".
Andrew Usher
> How about that liquid outer core of iron and sulfur that can not
> support shear waves.
I was obviously referring to the mantle only.
> And that "plastic" Asthenosphere
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asthenosphere
>
> "The upper part of the asthenosphere is believed to be the zone
> upon which the great rigid and brittle lithospheric plates of
> the Earth's crust move about. Due to the temperature and pressure
> conditions in the asthenosphere, rock becomes ductile, moving at
> rates of deformation measured in cm/yr over lineal distances
> eventually measuring thousands of kilometers. In this way, it
> flows like a convection current, radiating heat outward from the
> Earth's interior. Above the asthenosphere, at the same rate of
> deformation, rock behaves elastically and, being brittle, can
> break, causing faults. The rigid lithosphere is thought to "float"
> or move about on the slowly flowing asthenosphere, creating the
> movement of crustal plates described by Plate tectonics theory".
This doesn't contradict anything I said. The asthenosphere is
still essentially solid.
Andrew Usher
Sam Wormley
And it flows (slowly, just a few cm/yr) but it flows.
>
> Andrew Usher
BradGuth
Earth's crust is actually quite fluid to the 2e20 N tidal forces of
our Selene/moon, as supposedly good for a crust wave of 55 cm.
~ BG
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
There is enough ambiguity in the "so sad" statement to equivocate the point,
although in most cases it would be equivocal ad homenim. For example, the
use of deduction (argument from general principle) on points of complex
systems where the correct mode of argument is inductive (argument from fact)
tends to oversimplify the complexity of real systems to a point that is
quite literally depressing - hence "so sad". I'm not making excuses for
Uncle Al, but rather the point that this does fall to intent; and not being
a mind reader, I found your statement's lack of ambiguity definitely merited
my comment.
I can understand your feeling singled out here and the same points I made
may well apply to the "So sad" statement to which you were responding.
However, repeating the mistakes of others rarely if ever fixes the problem.
In this case returning ad homenim for ad homenim only ever starts a never
ending cycle that can be unfailingly observed in the conduct of Australian
politicians during "Question Time" in Parliament.
Solidification is a complex process and demands an inductive approach. It
would be worth looking into the difference between the behaviour of crystal
lattices such as those found in minerals such as graphite, mica and quartz
and that of liquids such as room temperature water - liquids are prone to be
amorphous even when the viscosity is too high to watch the flow occur in a
human life span. Then you have fluids as separate from homogenous liquids
which, whether gaseous or aqueous, are normally a composite of solid liquid
and/or gaseous material with sufficient liquid or gas phase present to flow
(Eg. nue ardente, clouds, turbidites, and many lavas, etc.). If the mantle
wasn't a fluid, isostatic rebound would not be possible and sea level would
have followed temperature throughout the Phanerozoic. Sea level is
demonstrated by Phanerozoic earth history to be at least partly independent
of temperature. See the main diagram at:
http://climate.geologist-1011.net
The diagram is properly paginated and the site has a print layout so you can
actually print just the chart by setting the "Pages from" 4 "to" 4 option on
the print form (window) - if that makes it any easier to read.
However, cutting to the chase, may I suggest reading up on how seismic
evaluation is used to determine phase boundaries. I'd recommend:
Press, F. & Siever, R., 1982, Earth, Freeman & Co., ISBN: 0-7167-1362-4.
Milsom, J., 1989, "Field Geophysics", ISBNs: 0-335-15207-4/0-470-21156-3.
Press & Siever (1982) is a good all round introduction and well referenced
so you can work your way into the literature on your topic of interest.
Press & Siever (1982, p. 410) explains that P waves propagate through both
solid and liquid phases while "S waves cannot travel in a liquid". This
means that by observing the propagation and degradation of different wave
forms over time and distance, you can determine quite accurately where
solid/liquid boundaries and phases are located. Milsom (1989) addresses some
of the practical aspects in more detail with respect to remote sensing
methods such as seismic and stratigraphic modelling.
You see, isn't that so much better than just telling someone to "Learn
something before posting."
(news:ce480cb7-6844-4599...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com)?
Once again, why attack the person if you can just put your point forward,
unless you don't have a point to begin with...?
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
news:48c25608$0$4454$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au
don findlay
Sam Wormley wrote:
That's right. It's solid on Wednesday when there's an Earthquake, but
settles back to being fluid by Thursday and carries on like that till
Sunday when there's another Earthquake to remind it which way round is
Arthur from Martha ..which is to say that it's all a question of
proclivities - ours that is, in making up our mind about material
properties in relation to time. But you have to put all of that aside
when taking into account the facts of the geological record. The
instant of material properties has no meaning on the scale of
geological time, and neither does any hypothesis which talks about
'flotation' when there are the likes of the Siberian traps, the Deccan
lavas and the Ethiopian Plateau to prove that 'flotation' of mantle
material on crust is something of a furphy. They haven't sunk through
the crust, ..and neither have any other chunks of 'mantle material',
of which there are plenty around still from the Archaean, .. and which
have had plenty of time to 'sink' on account od density contrast,
given the supposed density contrast making so-called 'slabs' sink
under conditions of much less density contrast.
So what is all this business of 'flotation' and density, and etc etc?
When it comes to mantle material, its spurging out, in big lumps - as
big as the ocean floors - and breaking up the crust as it does so,
and when it lies on top of the crust, it's NOT sinking through on
account of density, but is staying there. So you have to rethink your
argument about density and flotation. When it comes to the formation
and deformation of the planet, there's more to it than the
intellectual wood of Archimedes' Leg...
oriel36
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It is a question of whether geologists wish to remain with highly
elaborate modelling based on a stationary Earth thermal convection
notion or move to an entirely different set of principles based on
rotational dynamics influencing crustal dynamics.I am sure you are
impressing the hell out of yourself and many others who travel in the
same circles but from my seat, the internal structure and composition
of the Earth looks like a conceptual monster.
Rotational dynamics and especially the internal composition and
viscosity needed to generate a 40 KM spherical deviation requires a
fresh approach much as heliocentric reasoning introduced a dramatic
change from highly elaborate geocentric schemes -
"although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with
numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone
including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster
would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of
their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found
either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in
something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have
happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the
hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which
follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus,
1543 Copernicus
Remember,the Earth is rotating and the internal composition cannot
rotate as a single unit therefore differential rotation must be
present.
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
news:a00767e3-ca28-4ace...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
"It is a question of whether geologists wish to remain with highly
elaborate modelling based on a stationary Earth thermal convection
notion or move to an entirely different set of principles based on
rotational dynamics influencing crustal dynamics.I am sure you are
impressing the hell out of yourself and many others who travel in the
same circles but from my seat, the internal structure and composition
of the Earth looks like a conceptual monster."
[SNIP]
Please forgive my humble opinion,
but I think the biggest question is of what works.
[SNIP]
"Remember,the Earth is rotating and the internal composition cannot
rotate as a single unit therefore differential rotation must be
present."
Not necessarily. Take away the temperature differential and there is nothing
left to drive micro-rotations against friction. Even differential rotation
must overcome friction and for this to occur purely from the energy stored
in a body's angular momentum, the overall rate of rotation must decay as it
is consumed in overcoming friction. What empirical evidence do we have for
the decay of the earth's rotation and if so, what other momentum sinks must
we account for given any observed patterns of coincident decay in
interacting systems?
Convection is the simplest explanation of what we observe and the actual
process itself is corroborated by beryllium isotope studies.
Andrew Usher
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> Solidification is a complex process and demands an inductive approach.
What is an 'inductive approach'?
> It
> would be worth looking into the difference between the behaviour of crystal
> lattices such as those found in minerals such as graphite, mica and quartz
> and that of liquids such as room temperature water - liquids are prone to be
> amorphous even when the viscosity is too high to watch the flow occur in a
> human life span.
Liquids never have crystal lattices, by definition.
> Then you have fluids as separate from homogenous liquids
> which, whether gaseous or aqueous, are normally a composite of solid liquid
> and/or gaseous material with sufficient liquid or gas phase present to flow
> (Eg. nue ardente, clouds, turbidites, and many lavas, etc.).
You mean 'heterogeneous fluids'.
> If the mantle wasn't a fluid, isostatic rebound would not be possible
> and sea level would have followed temperature throughout the Phanerozoic.
The mantle does behave as a fluid. But your statement is confused;
isostatic rebound can't affect global (eustatic) sea level, and
there's no
particular reason to believe that sea level should follow temperature
over geological periods of time.
> Sea level is
> demonstrated by Phanerozoic earth history to be at least partly independent
> of temperature. See the main diagram at:http://climate.geologist-1011.net
> The diagram is properly paginated and the site has a print layout so you can
> actually print just the chart by setting the "Pages from" 4 "to" 4 option on
> the print form (window) - if that makes it any easier to read.
That's your own web site, which appears devoted to denying global
warming. That doesn't help your credibility with me.
> You see, isn't that so much better than just telling someone to "Learn
> something before posting."
> (news:ce480cb7-6844-4599...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com)?
>
> Once again, why attack the person if you can just put your point forward,
> unless you don't have a point to begin with...?
Because I don't have to reply to ignorance.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Earth's crust is actually quite fluid to the 2e20 N tidal forces of
> our Selene/moon, as supposedly good for a crust wave of 55 cm.
Elastic deformation.
Andrew Usher
oriel36
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Good for you, a stationary Earth 'convection cell' mechanism which has
no association with the Earth's shape and rotation is par for the
course but I prefer rotational geodynamics influencing both shape and
crustal motion/evolution.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/teacher_resources/magnetism/mid_atlantic_ridge_10_inch.jpg
Btw,that must be one helluva 'convection cell' creating the mid-
Atlantic ridge but I could almost swear that the ridge follows
rotational orientation and crustal evolution from the ridge is in the
direction of diurnal rotation.Wish I could get dynamicists interested
in rotation but as they seem content with a stationary Earth
mechanism,why bother !.
oriel36
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
>
> "Remember,the Earth is rotating and the internal composition cannot
> rotate as a single unit therefore differential rotation must be
> present."
>
> Not necessarily. Take away the temperature differential and there is nothing
> left to drive micro-rotations against friction. Even differential rotation
> must overcome friction and for this to occur purely from the energy stored
> in a body's angular momentum, the overall rate of rotation must decay as it
> is consumed in overcoming friction.
You are talking when you should be listening as the role rotational
dynamics plays in geological evolution of surface features is not
really for anyone's approval at the moment but rather follows from
generalised rules for any rotating composition in a viscous
state.There is a 3 way link involving rotational dynamics that should
now be so natural to reasonable people that it is incontrovertible -
1 - Maximum Equatorial speed
2- Degree of spherical deviation
3 - Differential rotation between Equatorial and polar regions
Stellar dynamicists already work with maximum Equatorial speeds and
spherical deviation in stars -
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2001/release_2001_150.html
I have posted this too often in recent times and that tends to
diminish the rotational concept,all the same,to miss the common
mechanism which links planetary shape and crustal motion looks like a
rather large oversight on the part of dynamicists notwithstanding that
no real effort and detail goes into the already known link between
rotation and planetary shape.
Just in case - Differential rotation represents fluid dynamics of a
rotating viscous composition,it has nothing to do with perceived
hemispherical forces such as Coriolis but dynamicists should already
know that.
don findlay
oriel36 wrote:
>
> You are talking when you should be listening
Are they? I don't think so. All I hear is just the silence of
''who's-looking-at-who', as they stop pecking each other's bums and
try to work out which chook amongst them is going to stand up and own
this one for them. It has to be in chookspeak before they hear it.
And it needs one of *them* to do that. They're waiting for a BigChook
amongst them to repeat what you're saying. At the moment they're just
going through the this-way-and-that ritual of eyeing each other.
oriel36
I have always stated that it will come down to a mechanism and
rotational dynamics requires no reference to either a balooning Earth
or a stationary thermally convecting one .The dramatic departure
from contemporary studies is in taking a wider geological and
astronomical view in facilitating an overlap of geological and
astronomical disciplines via the shape of the planet and then looking
at how the fractured crust responds to the rotation of the viscous
interior just as the shape of the planet does.I would expect
objections to the generalised rules based on rotational dynamics in
stars but any objection is negated on the basis that the relationship
between fluid dynamics and sphericity is already observationally
affirmed therefore making the Earth an exception presents more
difficulties than it solves.
The usual courtesy of allowing the ad hoc mechanism of 'convection
cells' to fade or rather , the shift from a stationary Earth mechanism
to the possibilities offered by rotational dynamics speaks more about
the modern tendency to assimilate genuine discoveries in an anonymous
way and although an injustice and contrary to the merit system there
are worse things going on.With all due respect,the shuffling of
surface correlations or concentration on surface chemical compositions
hardly reaches the level between the largest geological
featuires,planetary shape,orientation of the Mid-Atlantic
ridge,crustal development off that ridge with an underlying mechanism
that stringle suggests a rotational component.
Despite the signature of one particpant that a good idea faces strong
opposition and then becomes accepted through time is contrary to what
I have witnessed insofar as assimilation seems to be the way of
adjusting things and although it may diminish the efforts of an
individual and the merit system, such is this era where people are so
afraid of making a mistake or offending group consensus that an
almost anti-investigative atmosphere prevails. I understand that
considerations of rotational dynamics alters the picture in such a
dramatic way that it may not be possible to slowly adjust for one very
specific reason - the internal composition and viscosity of the
Earth's interior has been designed around thermal convection whereas
rotational dynamics,at least the one which generates the 40 KM
spherical deviation would require a different internal overview of
composition\viscosity.For me it is not a dilemma as I do not consider
thermal convection whereas others may find rotational dynamics
tempting but can't adjust to that dynamic from thermal convection.
Big issue but enjoyable at the same time.
Andrew Usher
> The
> amount of granitic crust which could exsolve is pretty high, if the
> mean composition is that of albite perhaps 20% of the mantle in the
> extreme - but this would not be reached until far below the solidus.
Actually, I found out that Earth is very depleted in alkalis, so the
mantle Al/alkali ratio is more like 8 than the cosmic ratio of 1.3 .
The composition of granitic rocks would remain practically constant
across this range with an effective ratio (after including Ca and
other cations) of 1, so merely the amount of granite wolud change.
It is not likely that any celestial body could go the other way,
with an enrichment of alkalis compared to Al, so the main
composition of granitic rock (alkali aluminosilicate) should be the
same everywhere, though the lesser elements will vary.
Andrew Usher
don findlay
oriel36 wrote:
> On Sep 7, 9:57�am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > oriel36 wrote:
> >
> > > You are talking when you should be listening
> >
> > Are they? �I don't think so. �All I hear is just the silence of
> > ''who's-looking-at-who', as they stop pecking each other's bums and
> > try to work out which chook amongst them is going to stand up and own
> > this one for them. �It has to be in chookspeak before they hear it.
> > And it needs one of *them* to do that. �They're waiting for a BigChook
> > amongst them to repeat what you're saying. �At the moment they're just
> > going through the this-way-and-that ritual of eyeing each other.
>
>
> I have always stated that it will come down to a mechanism and
> rotational dynamics requires no reference to either a balooning Earth
> or a stationary thermally convecting one .The dramatic departure
> from contemporary studies is in taking a wider geological and
> astronomical view in facilitating an overlap of geological and
> astronomical disciplines via the shape of the planet and then looking
> at how the fractured crust responds to the rotation of the viscous
> interior just as the shape of the planet does.
Taking the patterns of structural adjustment in relation to the
Earth's rotation is precisely what all of that green index page on my
site is about. It demonstrates that the structures that describe
rotational adjustment are the same ones that describe global
enlargement. Combining that with an astronomical framework is the
next step, ..and I think Mars shows an indication of that in the
relation of the Valles Marineris to the Tharsis Bubble.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/mars/index.html
That 'bubble' has a direct analogue with the initiation of Pacific
Spreading on Earth, and the geological history on Earth would support
an outpouring of water (as well as LIPS lavas) at that time too.
> I would expect
> objections to the generalised rules based on rotational dynamics in
> stars but any objection is negated on the basis that the relationship
> between fluid dynamics and sphericity is already observationally
> affirmed therefore making the Earth an exception presents more
> difficulties than it solves.
Sure. That's the big problem for Plate Tectonics. It cannot adapt
itself to Earth Rotation and the implications that follow from it in
*ANY WAY WHATSOEVER*, without negating itself entirely. Pouf! It
goes up in smoke. Everything about it is a dead duck. That's why
there's the silence, and the best muster they can put forward is
George in his whisky glass. And therein it goes right back to the
intial assumption that was made in the first place, on which the whole
edifice of Plate Tectonics is based - that the Earth cannot be getting
bigger:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html
That was the point of divergence from commonsense in the beginning and
the point to which geology must return. Arthur Holmes begins his book
'*Principles of Physical Geology* with the observation that the
Earth's geology must be interpreted in terms of its two balancing
elements, gravity and rotation, ..and the whole of his book is
testimony to how those are worked across the face of the Earth. It's
a further interesting point that although recognising a radioactive
source for heat and convection, and getting a prize for that, it is
reported that towards the end of his life he was never able to
reconcile heat as a driver for convection, with the tectonics of
global deformation.
>
> The usual courtesy of allowing the ad hoc mechanism of 'convection
> cells' to fade or rather , the shift from a stationary Earth mechanism
> to the possibilities offered by rotational dynamics speaks more about
> the modern tendency to assimilate genuine discoveries in an anonymous
> way
It's called the Meme Machine. First you create the meme, ..
outlining the glaringly obvious on grounds of rational and logical
belief, as you are doing here in respect of rotation. Then you write
the support around it. That way, since everybody already accepts it
(and believes it), you don't have to formally support it peer review.
All you have to do is state it. Support is already accomplished.
Your peer reviewers believe it too. So you don't waste time.
Exactly the same thing happened with Plate Tectonics. It was based on
a belief that the Earth could not be getting bigger because there was
no known way in physical theory that it could. It doesn't matter that
*everything* written about it since is self-contradictory -
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subcrux.html
...it's not the point. That's when there is a segue of focus from the
science to the career scientist. If you want to make a change, you
have to do it within the system - play them at their own game. Have
them read what you have to say within the scope of their own belief.
Don't tell them 'the obvious', ..let them tell you. Once it is
generally believed anyone can write any bullshit and notch it to their
'achievements'. Nice when somebody does the hard yards for them first
though.
> and although an injustice and contrary to the merit system there
> are worse things going on.
"Justice and merit"? Hah! .. You only have to listen to the likes of
Stuart and what he expouses, and juxtapose that with what these guys
say -
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/fraud.html
...to know where mainstream career interest lies. I mean lies.
(lies)
> With all due respect,the shuffling of
> surface correlations or concentration on surface chemical compositions
> hardly reaches the level between the largest geological
> featuires,planetary shape,orientation of the Mid-Atlantic
> ridge,crustal development off that ridge with an underlying mechanism
> that stringle suggests a rotational component.
Geology hasn't even properly begun yet. For this last half century
the subject has been becalmed in the doldrums of career interest.
Hopefully the younger ones looking for a better deal than is offered
by PT kindergarten 'activity', will work something out, ..but who
knows, .. geology might need to be brought under the aegis of
astronomy to allow the current lot of cranks to wither and die
gracefully. It's an exciting time as the planets are being brought in
to the picture. But a pity there seems to be (so far) no interest in
properly interpreting the geology of this one first.
>
> Despite the signature of one particpant that a good idea faces strong
> opposition and then becomes accepted through time is contrary to what
> I have witnessed insofar as assimilation seems to be the way of
> adjusting things and although it may diminish the efforts of an
> individual and the merit system, such is this era where people are so
> afraid of making a mistake or offending group consensus that an
> almost anti-investigative atmosphere prevails.
Such is the way it has become politically incorrect to offend people's
belief systems. Right across the board there is no such thing any
more as being wrong. Everything somehow has value.
> I understand that
> considerations of rotational dynamics alters the picture in such a
> dramatic way that it may not be possible to slowly adjust for one very
> specific reason - the internal composition and viscosity of the
> Earth's interior has been designed around thermal convection whereas
> rotational dynamics,at least the one which generates the 40 KM
> spherical deviation would require a different internal overview of
> composition\viscosity.For me it is not a dilemma as I do not consider
> thermal convection whereas others may find rotational dynamics
> tempting but can't adjust to that dynamic from thermal convection.
Yup the Plate Tectonics theorists have a hard time ahead of them,
trying to lug that baggage around with them and squeeze it into the
most impossible spaces (everybody believed it for nearly a century so
it must be right). It will be a laugh to see how they try, and
certainly a spotlight on the difference between the science and the
scientist.
BradGuth
Correct, and such elastic deforming via tidal flex is where some of
that 2e20 N/sec gets converted into heat (aka global warming).
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
oriel36
> That 'bubble' has a direct analogue with the initiation of Pacific
> Spreading on Earth, and the geological history on Earth would support
> an outpouring of water (as well as LIPS lavas) at that time too.
>
Considering that I am absolutely bewildered at the ability to ignore a
vital component of orbital motion in order to explain why people
experience seasonal variations in daylight/darkness and subsequently
on to climatological and meteorological matters I would say that the
other major development of linking rotational geodyanamics to crustal
dynamics is unlikely.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b
The longitudinal motion of the rings with respect to the central Sun
and separate to daily rotation and rotational orientation (tilt) is a
100% observational certainty and is still not applied to the Earth,not
even when it vital for climate studies.Again,people can actually See
the motion yet manage to ignore it therefore if you are looking to
astronomers for geological guidance,you can forget it.
> > I would expect
> > objections to the generalised rules based on rotational dynamics in
> > stars but any objection is negated on the basis that the relationship
> > between fluid dynamics and sphericity is already observationally
> > affirmed therefore making the Earth an exception presents more
> > difficulties than it solves.
>
> Sure. That's the big problem for Plate Tectonics. It cannot adapt
> itself to Earth Rotation and the implications that follow from it in
> *ANY WAY WHATSOEVER*, without negating itself entirely. Pouf! It
> goes up in smoke. Everything about it is a dead duck. That's why
> there's the silence, and the best muster they can put forward is
> George in his whisky glass. And therein it goes right back to the
> intial assumption that was made in the first place, on which the whole
> edifice of Plate Tectonics is based - that the Earth cannot be getting
> bigger:-http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html
> *everything* written about it since is self-contradictory -http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subcrux.html
> ...it's not the point. That's when there is a segue of focus from the
> science to the career scientist. If you want to make a change, you
> have to do it within the system - play them at their own game. Have
> them read what you have to say within the scope of their own belief.
> Don't tell them 'the obvious', ..let them tell you. Once it is
> generally believed anyone can write any bullshit and notch it to their
> 'achievements'. Nice when somebody does the hard yards for them first
> though.
>
I am working with rotational dynamics privately and watching plate
tectonics become diluted through stationary Earth convection cells
notions,basically a cartoon mechanism applied to a genuine insight and
that is as far as I go.
I watched what Newton did to heliocentric reasoning in creating a
conclusion that the planets behave like objects on Earth (terrestrial
ballistics) and then twisted everything towards bridging that link
much like what happens with ee or convection cell conclusions.Some of
the greatest known Western insights,specifically the resolution of
retrogrades via the Earth's orbital motion,was vandalised to bump up
his 'forces' agenda at the expense of brilliant reasoning by people
like Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.
I am not dealing with reasonable people otherwise the rotational
dynamics of the Earth's annual orbital motion for climate purposes and
daily rotation for geological purposes would have been discussed years
ago.
> > and although an injustice and contrary to the merit system there
> > are worse things going on.
>
> "Justice and merit"? Hah! .. You only have to listen to the likes of
> Stuart and what he expouses, and juxtapose that with what these guys
> say -http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/fraud.html
Fred Kasner
Assertions about the character of the core are based on the velocity
(speed changes and direction changes) of vibratory waves that travel
through the Earth - both natural and man produced.
FK
Yousuf Khan
> On Sep 5, 12:08 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Is the crust really all that different material from the mantle? In the
>> early days, I just thought the crust was just cooled mantle material.
>> How do they really know what the mantle is made of?
>
> The crust is differentiated from the mantle, oceanic crust less so
> than continental. We know the composition of the mantle, I think,
> largely from astronomical abundances.
So are you saying that the mantle more closely resembles the materials
in outer space? If so, then why is that the case when the crust is much
more closer to outer space than the mantle?
There was a story some time ago which states that some parts of the
ocean are just exposed mantle areas.
Mission to Study Earth's Gaping 'Open Wound' | LiveScience
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070301_exposed_mantle.html
>> Anyways, what's the liquid (i.e. magma) that exists below the crust made
>> of? Is it liquefied crust, or liquefied mantle? If it's liquefied crust,
>> then isn't that another example of a liquid existing below its solid phase?
>
> Magma is formed by partial melting of either mantle or crust. Yes, it
> is
> less dense than surrounding rock, which is why it moves upward.
You could probably the same thing about water and ice. As the ice cracks
and melts, water upwells into it from below.
Yousuf Khan
John Curtis
Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> There was a story some time ago which states that some parts of the
> ocean are just exposed mantle areas.
>
> Mission to Study Earth's Gaping 'Open Wound' | LiveScience
> http://www.livescience.com/environment/070301_exposed_mantle.html
>
Below an ocean depth of 3 km crust (basalt) formation declines.
It is replaced by formation of mantle (dunite) composed
primarily of olivine (peridot).
Below 3 km of ocean pressure silicon becomes more
soluble in water. It combines with four molecules of
water to form silicate anion which on contact with iron
or magnesium precipitates as olivine, Fe2SiO4, Mg2SiO4.
Between 2-3 km of water silicon is less soluble and combines
with only 3 molecules of water to form pyroxene FeSiO3
and MgSiO3 which are the primary ingredients of basalt.
Somewhere between 1-2 km of ocean depth silicon
no longer dissolves in water. It bubbles to the surface
where it reacts with atmospheric oxygen to form SiO2 ,
the primary component of ash and pumice rafts:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17461
John Curtis
BradGuth
> Every solid save water ice and a few semi-metals is denser than the
> liquid of the same composition, and the same temperature and pressure.
>
> This means that a liquid other than water will not exist beneath a
> solid of the same composition in a planet. A magma ocean therefore can
> only freeze from the bottom up, except for the granitic crust which,
> owing to its composition, is lighter than the liquid mantle. The
> amount of granitic crust which could exsolve is pretty high, if the
> mean composition is that of albite perhaps 20% of the mantle in the
> extreme - but this would not be reached until far below the solidus.
>
> from the top down, as the heat flux from below continues to decrease
> (yes, there is convection, but the effective viscosity is much higher
> in a solid than a liquid), and therefore should go to completion.
>
The crust of our Selene/moon is much thicker and more solid/robust
than anything Earth has to offer. Our gamma saturated Selene/moon
also has a greater surface than core density, plus having been
bleeding off or leaching sodium like there’s no end in sight.
The crust of Venus most likely isn't half the thickness of Earth's,
and Mars is nearly frozen or solidified solid to the core. What's not
adding up?
I tend to favor that intelligent ETs would find our relatively passive
and extensively IR producing sun as that offering a DNA/RNA friendly
sort of solar system, especially while visiting or pillaging
magnetosphere protected planets, possibly including a few of those
impressive Jupiter or Saturn moons, and not by any means to exclude
the geothermally active plus mineral and natural energy rich worlds
having thick/robust atmospheres like Venus, of which most folks like
yourself are either mainstream petrified as dumbfounded past the point
of no return, and/or having been mainstream status quo scared spitless
if not to death of Venus.
btw, any kind of historical revision pertaining to mainstream science
is simply not permitted by those in charge. It’s a mutual cover thy
butt kind of inside policy, with more faith-based strings attached
than even you can imagine. If Hitler were still alive, he’d have one
of those big ass smiles on his face, highly appreciating as to what
his Zionist/Nazis had accomplished.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
Andrew Usher
> Andrew Usher wrote:
> > On Sep 5, 12:08 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Is the crust really all that different material from the mantle? In the
> >> early days, I just thought the crust was just cooled mantle material.
> >> How do they really know what the mantle is made of?
>
> > The crust is differentiated from the mantle, oceanic crust less so
> > than continental. We know the composition of the mantle, I think,
> > largely from astronomical abundances.
>
> So are you saying that the mantle more closely resembles the materials
> in outer space? If so, then why is that the case when the crust is much
> more closer to outer space than the mantle?
Yes, the 'primitive mantle' (mean composition of the silicate Earth)
resembles the silicate phase of meteorites. The fact that the crust
is closer to space is irrrelevant; it is differenticated from the
mantle.
> There was a story some time ago which states that some parts of the
> ocean are just exposed mantle areas.
>
> Mission to Study Earth's Gaping 'Open Wound' | LiveSciencehttp://www.livescience.com/environment/070301_exposed_mantle.html
Well, this is possible I suppose. I'd like them to get samples, it
should be
obvious if it really is mantle material. No one peridotite, by the
way, reflects
the total composition of the upper mantle as it is considerably
heterogeneous.
> >> Anyways, what's the liquid (i.e. magma) that exists below the crust made
> >> of? Is it liquefied crust, or liquefied mantle? If it's liquefied crust,
> >> then isn't that another example of a liquid existing below its solid phase?
>
> > Magma is formed by partial melting of either mantle or crust. Yes, it
> > is
> > less dense than surrounding rock, which is why it moves upward.
>
> You could probably the same thing about water and ice. As the ice cracks
> and melts, water upwells into it from below.
Only when the overlying layer of ice is so thin that it can crack.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Below an ocean depth of 3 km crust (basalt) formation declines.
> It is replaced by formation of mantle (dunite) composed
> primarily of olivine (peridot).
For one thing, the mantle does not contain elemental silicon.
That invalidates your 'theory' already.
Andrew Usher
Sam Wormley
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
news:d37a0f96-b714-44c2...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 7, 5:53 am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
[SNIP]
"Good for you, a stationary Earth 'convection cell' mechanism which has
no association with the Earth's shape and rotation is par for the
course but I prefer rotational geodynamics influencing both shape and
crustal motion/evolution."
[SNIP]
I can relate to the idea that things are always more complex than we
imagine. Is this not what makes research so interesting?
I like what Fred Krasner has to say on the means by which we test our ideas
about planet earth's interior:
"Assertions about the character of the core are based on the velocity
(speed changes and direction changes) of vibratory waves that travel
through the Earth - both natural and man produced."
(news:f3Dxk.25355$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com)
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
> "Remember,the Earth is rotating and the internal composition cannot
> rotate as a single unit therefore differential rotation must be
> present."
>
> Not necessarily. Take away the temperature differential and there is
nothing
> left to drive micro-rotations against friction. Even differential rotation
> must overcome friction and for this to occur purely from the energy stored
> in a body's angular momentum, the overall rate of rotation must decay as
it
> is consumed in overcoming friction.
"You are talking when you should be listening"
[SNIP]
Gee, you really know how to rub people the wrong way! :^)
I probably should listen more, but Hey! I'm human just like you. :^)
You know, it just might help people be more willing to explore your ideas if
you can accept the quirks of their humanity. We all love to chatter, perhaps
because we all want to be heard, no?
I can understand your frustration at posting the same old stuff over and
over again - but I've got to say, you are not alone. Apparently this is a
common problem on newsgroups.
What do you have in the way of reference sources regarding the subject of
viscous fluid dynamics of rotational bodies?
TIA
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
> On Sep 6, 4:05 am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
> <eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
>
> > Solidification is a complex process and demands an inductive approach.
>
> What is an 'inductive approach'?
Well, there is argument from principle (IE "the inference of particular
instances by reference to a general law or principle" - Concise Oxford
Dictionary) and that is called "deduction".
Then there is argument from evidence (IE "The production of facts to prove a
general statement" - Concise Oxford Dictionary) and that is called
"induction".
For me, the inductive approach is to begin with the evidence or otherwise
relate the idea back to the evidence, no matter how remotely separated by
deductive sections. In this case, a lava cools from the outside in...
>
> > It
> > would be worth looking into the difference between the behaviour of
crystal
> > lattices such as those found in minerals such as graphite, mica and
quartz
> > and that of liquids such as room temperature water - liquids are prone
to be
> > amorphous even when the viscosity is too high to watch the flow occur in
a
> > human life span.
>
> Liquids never have crystal lattices, by definition.
Quite the point!
>
> > Then you have fluids as separate from homogenous liquids
> > which, whether gaseous or aqueous, are normally a composite of solid
liquid
> > and/or gaseous material with sufficient liquid or gas phase present to
flow
> > (Eg. nue ardente, clouds, turbidites, and many lavas, etc.).
>
> You mean 'heterogeneous fluids'.
>
> > If the mantle wasn't a fluid, isostatic rebound would not be possible
> > and sea level would have followed temperature throughout the
Phanerozoic.
>
> The mantle does behave as a fluid. But your statement is confused;
> isostatic rebound can't affect global (eustatic) sea level, and
> there's no
> particular reason to believe that sea level should follow temperature
> over geological periods of time.
It can when everything is in motion - remember, sea level is only relative
and if basins deepen under the weight of increased amounts of water and
sediment, the mantle material has to go somewhere. Continental plates
generally don't gain water or sediment mass, to the same degree, so beneath
such plates is where one would expect mass-displaced mantle material to
migrate. There are some examples of this kind of thing in geological history
that I touch briefly on at:
http://climate.geologist-1011.net - and the point of this link is not so
much to validate what I am saying but to offer off-topic elaboration for
those who are interested as well as some references to the evidence reported
in the peer reviewed literature.
>
> > Sea level is
> > demonstrated by Phanerozoic earth history to be at least partly
independent
> > of temperature. See the main diagram
at:http://climate.geologist-1011.net
> > The diagram is properly paginated and the site has a print layout so you
can
> > actually print just the chart by setting the "Pages from" 4 "to" 4
option on
> > the print form (window) - if that makes it any easier to read.
>
> That's your own web site, which appears devoted to denying global
> warming. That doesn't help your credibility with me.
My credibility is off topic, irrelevant, and unimportant. I have many faux
pas' to my name, I am after all, Human just like you. Consider me Timmy
Ignoramus for the purposes of discussion and try to focus on what I am
saying instead of who I am or whether I am qualified to think for myself.
It might be my own web site, but are all the references my own websites too?
You see, there is plenty of real hard evidence discovered by many others
that denies the state of fear over climate change - all in the references.
That is why I refer to the site. By the way, my site doesn't deny global
warming or climate change, it denies catastrophism.
> > You see, isn't that so much better than just telling someone to "Learn
> > something before posting."
> > (news:ce480cb7-6844-4599...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com)?
> >
> > Once again, why attack the person if you can just put your point
forward,
> > unless you don't have a point to begin with...?
>
> Because I don't have to reply to ignorance.
Hmm, interesting...
You see, argumentum ad homenim is not really, "not replying".
I think ad homenim is just thuggery.
oriel36
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
If it is a fluid it is already viscous.
There is no frustration,the opposite in fact given that I openly enjoy
rotational dynamics and leave nothing to stationary Earth 'convection
cells'.With everybody trading in surface correlations and chemical
compositions without reference to rotational dynamics nor how the
Earth's spherical deviation meshes in with crustal evolution and
motion,I have no reason to complain.
When a major modification comes along,there is no real need to
constantly recycle the arguments and I am not going to twist people's
arms,so to speak,in pointing out that a rotating Earth has rotational
consequences such as the differential rotation of the interior.They
can even borrow generalised rotational dynamics from stars if they
wish to demonstrate that a rotating composition in a viscous state
displays differential rotation between Equatorial and polar regions.
Enjoy your stationary Earth conceptions and you can safely leave me to
enjoy the consequences of a rotating Earthon both planetary shape and
crustal motion.
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
[SNIP]
"There is no frustration,the opposite in fact given that I openly enjoy
rotational dynamics and leave nothing to stationary Earth 'convection
cells'.With everybody trading in surface correlations and chemical
compositions without reference to rotational dynamics nor how the
Earth's spherical deviation meshes in with crustal evolution and
motion,I have no reason to complain."
[SNIP]
So how do you acount for what seismic data implies about the earth's
interior?
oriel36
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ad77b1ef-1979-4916...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> [SNIP]
> "There is no frustration,the opposite in fact given that I openly enjoy
> rotational dynamics and leave nothing to stationary Earth 'convection
> cells'.With everybody trading in surface correlations and chemical
> compositions without reference to rotational dynamics nor how the
> Earth's spherical deviation meshes in with crustal evolution and
> motion,I have no reason to complain."
> [SNIP]
>
> So how do you acount for what seismic data implies about the earth's
> interior?
>
Look,right now there is an enormous amount of attention being paid to
the LHC and the interpretation of data it will generate,with the usual
cobblers about the 'deep mysteries of the universe','new physic,etc,
etc. I have images of a planet in motion with demonstrates how a
planet orbits the central Sun in a specific way and applying the
lessons learned to the Earth will give an entirely new explanation for
why we experience seasonal daylight/darkness variations and why the
natural noon cycles are unequal -
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b
The point is that if nobody can interpret a motion that you can see,it
is unlikely that the same people can interpret a motion that you
cannot such as the Earth's interior.What you can do is observe
differential rotation happening in an object with an exposed viscous
state (stellar dynamics) and apply differential rotation as a given in
determining deviation from sphericity ,they already do it if you
search the web.
As a stationary Earther,you will indeed look for seismic data to
support 'convection cell's and consequently organise the interior
composition to suit that nonsense and you know what ?,I am entirely
happy to see you pursue that agenda and be proud of it.If you ask a
question about the Earth's rotation I will most certainly consider it
but without reference to the planet's spherical shape and the
rotational specifics of what causes a 40 km deviation I suggest you
stick with your chemical compositions and convection cells.
Spaceman
> On Sep 11, 6:52 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
> <eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ad77b1ef-1979-4916...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> [SNIP]
>> "There is no frustration,the opposite in fact given that I openly
>> enjoy rotational dynamics and leave nothing to stationary Earth
>> 'convection cells'.With everybody trading in surface correlations
>> and chemical compositions without reference to rotational dynamics
>> nor how the Earth's spherical deviation meshes in with crustal
>> evolution and motion,I have no reason to complain."
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> So how do you acount for what seismic data implies about the earth's
>> interior?
>>
>
> Look,right now there is an enormous amount of attention being paid to
> the LHC and the interpretation of data it will generate,with the usual
> cobblers about the 'deep mysteries of the universe','new physic,etc,
> etc. I have images of a planet in motion with demonstrates how a
> planet orbits the central Sun in a specific way and applying the
> lessons learned to the Earth will give an entirely new explanation for
> why we experience seasonal daylight/darkness variations and why the
> natural noon cycles are unequal -
Well,
How about this Oriel36,
The revolution speed of Earth never actually changes,
It is simply the elliptic orbit that creates the difference
in light/dark and longer/shorter days with reference to the sun.
:)
oriel36
wrote:
Do not waste my time !,if you want to listen then listen,if not then
stay away from this important matter.Unless you haven't noticed,there
is a clear distinction between human influence on climate and natural
variations and presently individuals are required to appreciate what
goes into the annual cyclical variations at the barest level -
variations in daylight/darkness and then consider climate as a
whole.Spare me the stupid emoticons for I assure you it takes quite an
effort to split daily rotational and orbital motions and work on the
specifics of both,I do it without acknowledgement in any shape or
form.
Too many are interested in mocking each other using the terrestrial
and celestial arena as a backdrop so stop it and stop it now.
You want to explain it then explain it in detail
Spaceman
Well,
Sorry if it was too simple of a statement.
I do know this is important to you so please accept
my appology for being too simple.
But what I was thinking makes sense geometrically to me.
If an object is revolving at a constant revolution and making
360 degree rotations at such a constant speed, but traveling
in an elliptical orbit, the light shining per day will change
per it's orbital position with relation to the sun and there
will be one longest day and one shortest day for one
trip around the sun. (year).
I hope you would like to enlighten me to what else you
are considering since I guess this is not the only factor involved.
But i do think it is a partial factor at least and should not be
ignored nor a waste of time as part of the explanation at least.
oriel36
Not even close and looks very much like the hundreds of others who try
to guess their way through this material.
> I hope you would like to enlighten me to what else you
> are considering since I guess this is not the only factor involved.
> But i do think it is a partial factor at least and should not be
> ignored nor a waste of time as part of the explanation at least.
Two motions - daily rotation and orbital motion,each separate from
each other.
Ask a simple question -
In the absence of daily rotation,would a location on Earth keep the
same face to the Sun over the course of a year and therefore
experience constant daylight or would a location change its
orientation to the central Sun and experience a year long day in terms
of daylight/darkness ?.
The answer is in that time lapse footage of Uranus, you can see daily
rotation as a separate motion to the change in the motion of the ring
as Uranus orbits the Sun -
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b
One simple question that changes the way we look at orbital motion and
nobody has answered it correctly,not even when you can actually see
it.Here James,here is an animation which may help where a crank pin
constantly pointing to the same external point yet changes is
orientation to the central shaft -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV9WkQkUHZ4
Apply it to Uranus -
http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/BrauImNew/Chap13/FG13_06.jpg
And then apply it to the Earth ,something which has not been done
before.As the Equinox approaches in another week,the forward orbital
motion of the Earth brings the circle of illumination in line the
geographical poles thereby generating the same length of daylight/
darkness at all points on the globe.The explanation presently uses
'axial tilt' and does not reference what is happening orbitally.
Again,if people cannot handle the basic daylight/darkness variation
cycle and what causes it,they are unlikely to be capable of handling
climate and that James, is very important .
Spaceman
If the Earth was not rotating with reference to space itself.
As if one location on Earth was always pointing towards one
point billions and billions of miles away and it was only traveling
around the sun without daily rotation, then it would still experience
day and night but of course the day would last about half a year
and the night would be about the other half.
Hmm?
I think I might see what you are getting at but I don't want to jump
any further yet and would rather think a bit more about my thoughts.
> The answer is in that time lapse footage of Uranus, you can see daily
> rotation as a separate motion to the change in the motion of the ring
> as Uranus orbits the Sun -
>
> http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b
>
> One simple question that changes the way we look at orbital motion and
> nobody has answered it correctly,not even when you can actually see
> it.Here James,here is an animation which may help where a crank pin
> constantly pointing to the same external point yet changes is
> orientation to the central shaft -
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV9WkQkUHZ4
>
> Apply it to Uranus -
>
> http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/BrauImNew/Chap13/FG13_06.jpg
>
> And then apply it to the Earth ,something which has not been done
> before.As the Equinox approaches in another week,the forward orbital
> motion of the Earth brings the circle of illumination in line the
> geographical poles thereby generating the same length of daylight/
> darkness at all points on the globe.The explanation presently uses
> 'axial tilt' and does not reference what is happening orbitally.
>
> Again,if people cannot handle the basic daylight/darkness variation
> cycle and what causes it,they are unlikely to be capable of handling
> climate and that James, is very important .
I think I might be getting it, but I would like to know if you think
my answer above is following what you stated and what you tried
to point out to me.
oriel36
If the Earth were not rotating - period .No rotation,no pointing,no
reference, nothing just orbital motion by itself .Then you look at
what any location on Earth will do over an orbital period.
Once a person clues into what is happening,and it is orbitally
fascinating,they will see just how big that additional and overlooked
orbital component is,truly !.
Keep trying and then use daily rotation and the slow orbital change
with respect to the central Sun to move on to why the noon cycles vary
in length (not the same thing as daylight/darkness variations).It is a
bit tricky but once you see it,it changes many,many things.
Spaceman
> On Sep 12, 7:52 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> oriel36 wrote:
>>> Ask a simple question -
>>
>>> In the absence of daily rotation,would a location on Earth keep the
>>> same face to the Sun over the course of a year and therefore
>>> experience constant daylight or would a location change its
>>> orientation to the central Sun and experience a year long day in
>>> terms of daylight/darkness ?.
>>
>> If the Earth was not rotating with reference to space itself.
>
> If the Earth were not rotating - period .No rotation,no pointing,no
> reference, nothing just orbital motion by itself .Then you look at
> what any location on Earth will do over an orbital period.
>
> Once a person clues into what is happening,and it is orbitally
> fascinating,they will see just how big that additional and overlooked
> orbital component is,truly !.
Without daily rotation, we would get half year light, half year night.
on one point of the Earth.
We would only get a perceived rotation as one percieved rotation
per year but not a physical rotation.
The light from the sun would still travel around the Earth once per
year if that is the "no rotation" of Earth you mean.
I am thinking you mean NOT like the moon that faces one point
towards us at all times which actually is one physical revolution each
orbit..)
That is what I was saying, I probably should not have used the
pointing method since that would create rotation like the moon
does.
><Snipped>
>> I think I might be getting it, but I would like to know if you think
>> my answer above is following what you stated and what you tried
>> to point out to me.
>
> Keep trying and then use daily rotation and the slow orbital change
> with respect to the central Sun to move on to why the noon cycles vary
> in length (not the same thing as daylight/darkness variations).It is a
> bit tricky but once you see it,it changes many,many things.
I am slowly putting it together I think
Going to get some sleep though right now.
Been a tiring day trying to spread the word about clock malfunctions
as you know.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
BradGuth
Add in another 2e20 N/sec worth of orbiting tidal flexing, and it's
even more interesting.
~ BG
BradGuth
> crustal motion.
>
> > TIA
>
> > --
> > Timothy Casey GPEMC! Conditions apply. Seewww.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
> > Essays:http://timothycasey.info;http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Don't leave out our Selene/moon, and of it's 2e20 N/sec worth of tidal
body flexing force, causing an equator wave of 55 cm isn't exactly
insignificant.
~ BG
oriel36
Yes James,it already happens at the North and South poles where daily
rotation is at its least.They already experience a year long cycle of
daylight/darkness and if daily rotation did stop,every location on the
planet would experience the same thing.
This year long daylight/darkness cycle is due to the orbital motion of
the Earth and not 'axial tilt' and that is where the major change in
explanation occurs.I know too well just how tricky it is at first to
get your head around it at first however the time lapse footage of
Uranus will help in showing how the orbital motion of the planet
behaves separately to daily rotation.The mind tends to want to join
the daily rotation and orbital motion and that is why the variable
'axial tilt' explanation has remained for so long whereas if you just
see orbital motion without daily rotation (as close as physically
possible at the poles) it is possible to see what is happening as the
Earth orbits the Sun.
Look,it is possible to keep taunting those who cannot alter their
views and God knows some of them deserve it however it is much better
to demonstrate where modern imaging can be put to spectacular use if
the right people can interpret the images correctly and certainly
this particular topic has huge benefits for climate studies along with
a separate insight based on geological implications arising from daily
rotation.In short,I hope people actually look at the motions of the
Earth and depart from the awful framework created in the late 17th
century by Flamsteed,Newton and their followers.
Spaceman
Just for my references,
Where is it that Newton explains seasons and goes wrong like the others?
oriel36
Do you not find the specific way the Earth orbits the central Sun to
be fascinating ?,I mean,this is brand new and has never been discussed
before.If you look at the time lapse footage of Uranus you would
imagine that the rotational orientation (tilt) is pointing at
different points in space but is in fact constant pointing to the same
direction,just as the Earth is so the change is due to the way the
planet orbits the Sun -
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b
This is a rare type of modification James (Kepler's orbital
modification being another),this bypasses the mutations of Flamsteed/
Newton in the late 17th century and goes straight to the original
explanation of Copernicus himself -
"To this circle, which goes through the middle of the signs, and to
its plane, the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have
a variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and
were affected exclusively by the motion of the centre, no inequality
of days and nights would be observed. On the contrary,it day or the
day of equal daylight and darkness, or summer or winter, or whatever
the character of the season, it would remain identical and
unchanged." Copernicus
The new modification for the explanation of seasonal daylight/darkness
variations does not rely on variable axial/equatorial tilt but
introduces an orbital component by focusing on how the specific way
the Earth orbits the central Sun just like Uranus,the difference being
that modern imaging is so powerful along with time lapse footage that
it is a 100% observational and geometric certainty.It was the need to
explain why the natural noon cycles vary globally by the same amount
that required an explanation and that is where Newton/Flamsteed come
in.
I am not doing this to prove Newton wrong,I am doing this because
there is a new way to explain the seasons and even if I can go through
the whole tangled mess created in the late 17th century with ease,the
point is to get people looking at something spectacular for a change.
Spaceman
I do find it all amazing that the seasons have been incorrectly
interpreted for so long and I am glad I finally get what you have been
saying, and I agree your found "cause" is much more elegant than
the mixups of the earlier years.
And I get it now, Newton was one of the "tilt" cause supporters
then?
Bear with me please though....
I would have to say, tilt is still a partial cause but only
because the tilt would cause the northern/southern change
during the orbital path being that in one half of the orbit
the north side gets more sun and the other half the south
side does from the tilt being like it is.
But I do agree the orbital path alone is the major cause of the change
to each hemisphere since the changes in the temperature are caused
by that and not actually the tilt.
I think both the orbital cause and the tilt cause are truly needed.
If the tilt were not there, we would get 24 hr light at both poles
and then the orbital path would only have distance as a change.
oriel36
The problem with the older 'axial tilt' explanation arose when the
variations in the natural noon cycles required accounting for using
the daily rotational and orbital motion of the Earth,these natural
noon variations share the same explanation as seasonal daylight/
darkness variations but exist as a separate issue.The way to
correctly resolve why we observe the same nartural noon variations
everywhere on the planet is to look at the time lapse footage of
Uranus again -
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b
There are two motions that are clearly visible as you look at
Uranus,the daily rotation of the planet and then there is the change
in the rings with respect to the central Sun,the way we know these two
motions interact on our planet is through the observation that the
noon cycles are unequal.If you agree that a location slowly turns
through 360 degrees with respect to the Sun over the course of a year
while the same location has a sepate motion which turns 360 degrees
daily,these two separate motions combine just as they do with
Uranus.The only difficulty and it is an enormous challenge,is to
isolate orbital motion from daily rotation don't even attempt to
consider them as a single motion (this is the problem with the 'axial
tilt' explanation).
The modification is based on introducing that slow orbital turning of
the planet through 360 degrees over the course of an annual orbit
where the older 'tilt' explanation has the Earth Equator rock
backwards and forwards to the Sun or orbital plane
> And I get it now, Newton was one of the "tilt" cause supporters
> then?
It is possible to bypass Newton and Flamsteed altogether and go
directly to the original seasonal explanation of Copernicus.The
modification takes nothing away from what Copernicus achieved no more
that the modification Kepler introduced to orbital speeds and
geometry diminished the man's sectacular insight based on introducing
daily rotational and orbital motion to account for observations.The
problems introduced in the Flamsteed/Newton era is that they no longer
can explain the daily cycle correctly ,they won't even recognise the
natural noon cycles vary in order to justify a dumb value for axial
rotation through 360 degrees -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
In short,you can modify the explanation for the seasons using the
methods and insights of Copernicus and Kepler but it is impossible to
do so with the framework that Newton adopted from Flamsteed.It is a
thorny and tangled affair based on the creation of the Equatorial
Coordinate System which runs everything of the daily rotation of the
Earth .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_coordinate_system
It sounds great until you put the thing is motion -
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif
This why I wish to bypass Newton and his crowd who are making things
difficult in appreciating and interpreting motions which can now be
seen using time lapse footage and modern imaging.
> Bear with me please though....
> I would have to say, tilt is still a partial cause but only
> because the tilt would cause the northern/southern change
> during the orbital path being that in one half of the orbit
> the north side gets more sun and the other half the south
> side does from the tilt being like it is.
Forget 'tilt',to tilt something is an action and the planet does not
have that action,it does have a rotational orientation due to daily
rotation but that is as far as it goes ,The Earth daily rotation
generates an effect which keeps it pointing in one direction in space
-
http://www.robertreeves.com/star_trails_sept_18-9_2006_9pm-6am.jpg
The image tells you that the Earth's Equator keeps pointing in the
same direction in space therefore nothing is tilting towardsas and
away from the Sun.
Start from scratch -
Day and night cycle = daily rotation
Seasonal variations in daylight/darkness = daily rotation + ?.
It has to be another motion and that is why you look at the spoecific
way the Earth orbits the Sun.
> But I do agree the orbital path alone is the major cause of the change
> to each hemisphere since the changes in the temperature are caused
> by that and not actually the tilt.
> I think both the orbital cause and the tilt cause are truly needed.
> If the tilt were not there, we would get 24 hr light at both poles
> and then the orbital path would only have distance as a change.
>
Another simple question added to the one about whether a location
keeps the same side to the Sun or changes it.
If the Earth's rotational was straight up and down,would the natural
noon cycles still be unequal ?.The answer is yes they would and that
is why the new orbital component is still required .
Andrew Usher
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Andrew Usher
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> For me, the inductive approach is to begin with the evidence or otherwise
> relate the idea back to the evidence, no matter how remotely separated by
> deductive sections. In this case, a lava cools from the outside in...
Yes, but the scaling is quite different. A crystallising magma ocean
has
a much much higher ratio of gravitational to viscous forces, as well
as
a much longer timescale and much smaller thermal gradient, than a
cooling lava flow.
> > > It
> > > would be worth looking into the difference between the behaviour of
> crystal
> > > lattices such as those found in minerals such as graphite, mica and
> quartz
> > > and that of liquids such as room temperature water - liquids are prone
> to be
> > > amorphous even when the viscosity is too high to watch the flow occur in
> a
> > > human life span.
>
> > Liquids never have crystal lattices, by definition.
>
> Quite the point!
Actually, you didn't seem to be making any point.
> > > If the mantle wasn't a fluid, isostatic rebound would not be possible
> > > and sea level would have followed temperature throughout the
> Phanerozoic.
>
> > The mantle does behave as a fluid. But your statement is confused;
> > isostatic rebound can't affect global (eustatic) sea level, and
> > there's no
> > particular reason to believe that sea level should follow temperature
> > over geological periods of time.
>
> It can when everything is in motion - remember, sea level is only relative
> and if basins deepen under the weight of increased amounts of water and
> sediment, the mantle material has to go somewhere. Continental plates
> generally don't gain water or sediment mass, to the same degree, so beneath
> such plates is where one would expect mass-displaced mantle material to
> migrate.
This has nothing to do with the correlation between sea level and
surface temperature that you assert. Yes, there is such net migration,
but since the mantle is a fluid, the movement doesn't need to be
explained as such.
> > That's your own web site, which appears devoted to denying global
> > warming. That doesn't help your credibility with me.
>
> My credibility is off topic, irrelevant, and unimportant. I have many faux
> pas' to my name, I am after all, Human just like you. Consider me Timmy
> Ignoramus for the purposes of discussion and try to focus on what I am
> saying instead of who I am or whether I am qualified to think for myself.
I am. If you had proof, I wouldn't need to think about who you are.
> It might be my own web site, but are all the references my own websites too?
> You see, there is plenty of real hard evidence discovered by many others
> that denies the state of fear over climate change - all in the references.
> That is why I refer to the site. By the way, my site doesn't deny global
> warming or climate change, it denies catastrophism.
This again has nothing to do with the correlation that you're
asserting
between sea level and surface temperature.
Global warming is not a 'catastrophist' theory, at least when properly
presented in a scientific manner.
Andrew Usher
Spaceman
daily rotation + orbital path + planet orientation.
orbital path creates differentials in daylight time,
plaent orientation causes seasonal shift from north to south
simple enough and makes more sense also.
> It has to be another motion and that is why you look at the spoecific
> way the Earth orbits the Sun.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> But I do agree the orbital path alone is the major cause of the
>> change to each hemisphere since the changes in the temperature are
>> caused
>> by that and not actually the tilt.
>> I think both the orbital cause and the tilt cause are truly needed.
>> If the tilt were not there, we would get 24 hr light at both poles
>> and then the orbital path would only have distance as a change.
>>
>
> Another simple question added to the one about whether a location
> keeps the same side to the Sun or changes it.
>
> If the Earth's rotational was straight up and down,would the natural
> noon cycles still be unequal ?.The answer is yes they would and that
> is why the new orbital component is still required .
Yes the simple elliptic orbit would change the noon cycles as long as
the planet rotation speed is constant.
The only way it would have perfect noon cycles would be with a
perfect orbit.
oriel36
>
>
>
> > This why I wish to bypass Newton and his crowd who are making things
> > difficult in appreciating and interpreting motions which can now be
> > seen using time lapse footage and modern imaging.
>
> >> Bear with me please though....
> >> I would have to say, tilt is still a partial cause but only
> >> because the tilt would cause the northern/southern change
> >> during the orbital path being that in one half of the orbit
> >> the north side gets more sun and the other half the south
> >> side does from the tilt being like it is.
>
> > Forget 'tilt',to tilt something is an action and the planet does not
> > have that action,it does have a rotational orientation due to daily
> > rotation but that is as far as it goes ,The Earth daily rotation
> > generates an effect which keeps it pointing in one direction in space
> > -
>
> >http://www.robertreeves.com/star_trails_sept_18-9_2006_9pm-6am.jpg
>
> > The image tells you that the Earth's Equator keeps pointing in the
> > same direction in space therefore nothing is tilting towardsas and
> > away from the Sun.
>
> > Start from scratch -
>
> > Day and night cycle = daily rotation
>
> > Seasonal variations in daylight/darkness = daily rotation + ?.
>
> daily rotation + orbital path + planet orientation.
No,
Daily rotation of a location through 360 degrees + slow orbital
orientation change of a location through 360 degrees with respect to
the central Sun.If you agree that in the absence of daily rotation,a
location will experience a full day/night cycle and take an entire
year to complete it then you need not bother with the orbital path.
> orbital path creates differentials in daylight time,
> plaent orientation causes seasonal shift from north to south
> simple enough and makes more sense also.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTrYVBcx9s
That time lapse footage is taken from the point of view of daily
rotation being stationary and you can see that the Earth is not
'tilting' in and out of orbital shadow but there is another motion at
work.It is easier to appreciate that orbital component in Uranus
because of the unique features of that planet and its distance from
the Sun but what you are seeing of the Earth from space is the forward
motion of the Earth slowly turning with respect to the central
Sun.From an orbital point of view,the Earth looks like the following
image at all times -
http://starryskies.com/The_sky/events/lunar-2003/earth.moon.mariner10.png
> > It has to be another motion and that is why you look at the spoecific
> > way the Earth orbits the Sun.
>
> >> But I do agree the orbital path alone is the major cause of the
> >> change to each hemisphere since the changes in the temperature are
> >> caused
> >> by that and not actually the tilt.
> >> I think both the orbital cause and the tilt cause are truly needed.
> >> If the tilt were not there, we would get 24 hr light at both poles
> >> and then the orbital path would only have distance as a change.
>
> > Another simple question added to the one about whether a location
> > keeps the same side to the Sun or changes it.
>
> > If the Earth's rotational was straight up and down,would the natural
> > noon cycles still be unequal ?.The answer is yes they would and that
> > is why the new orbital component is still required .
>
> Yes the simple elliptic orbit would change the noon cycles as long as
> the planet rotation speed is constant.
> The only way it would have perfect noon cycles would be with a
> perfect orbit.
The answer to the question is that there are two separate motions
going on simultaneously for any given location,you are experiencing
daily rotation and simultaneously the orbital motion of your location
changes with respect to the central Sun,the rate of change is unequal
due to the variation in speed at which the Earth travels around the
central Sun.The planet's path does not factor in to why we experience
seasonal daylight/darkness variations,if you have any doubts then
just turn to the images of Uranus and watch two separate motions at
work -
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b
Take your time with this material,it is a bit tricky but it is well
worth it in the end.There are sites dedicated to climate studies and
they positively refuse to look or interpret those images of Uranus in
order to apply the same lessons to the Earth.This is not an endurance
contest James and if something is not clear at the beginning it will
become easier with familiarity and it took me a long while to work out
what was going on and where the obstacles are.
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
news:130f3b8a-5faa-45e2...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
> Add in another 2e20 N/sec worth of orbiting tidal flexing, and it's
> even more interesting.
>
> ~ BG
This point is very interesting to me. Would anyone know where I might find a
formula that predicts the point where this flexure is maximum (IE returning
Longitude & Latitude for example) at any given date and time (IE input
related to date and time even if it is the number of seconds since 2000AD or
likewise)?
TIA
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
[SNIP]
> Don't leave out our Selene/moon, and of it's 2e20 N/sec worth of tidal
> body flexing force, causing an equator wave of 55 cm isn't exactly
> insignificant.
>
> ~ BG
This point is very interesting to me. Would anyone know where I might find a
formula that predicts the point where this flexure is maximum (IE returning
Longitude & Latitude of maximum tidal force for example) at any given date
and time (IE input related to date and time even if it is the number of
seconds since 2000AD or likewise)?
TIA
--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! Conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Essays: http://timothycasey.info; http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
> On Sep 10, 9:47 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
> <eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
>
> > For me, the inductive approach is to begin with the evidence or
otherwise
> > relate the idea back to the evidence, no matter how remotely separated
by
> > deductive sections. In this case, a lava cools from the outside in...
>
> Yes, but the scaling is quite different. A crystallising magma ocean
> has
> a much much higher ratio of gravitational to viscous forces, as well
> as
> a much longer timescale and much smaller thermal gradient, than a
> cooling lava flow.
Beryllium-10 isotope studies speak to motion of the mantle relative to the
crust, and the coldness of space speaks to a net temperature gradient for
the system that can and does drive convection cells at various levels. We
directly observe convection in the atmosphere and in key ocean circulation
currents. If we assume that the hottest part is the core as it is with most
cooling bodies in natural systems, then it would not be unreasonable to
presume fluid motion is a product of convection unless there is an
explanation that is more comprehensive of the available data.
[SNIP]
> This again has nothing to do with the correlation that you're
> asserting
> between sea level and surface temperature.
I'm not asserting a correlation. I'm asserting a *lack* of correlation.
Isostasy may drive the periods of inverse correlation, or these may simply
be random artefacts of a system with no overall correlation. However,
isostasy has been used on occasion to offer an explanation of some relative
sea level changes and I think that this makes it relevant as a competing
process when addressing claims that sea level is driven by temperature.
> Global warming is not a 'catastrophist' theory, at least when properly
> presented in a scientific manner.
I agree that global warming, without the obligatory catastrophe, it is not a
catastrophist theory; and it has been shown to have happened many times in
the past. However, while I don't deny these many periods of global warming
and cooling, I reject the unsupported conjecture of looming global
catastrophe, if only because periods of global warming in the past are most
commonly associated with conditions advantageous to life on Earth.
Andrew Usher
emitting random nonsense. I'm not wasting my time on you.
Andrew Usher
BradGuth
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
As of most recently, how close do we get to the Sirius star/solar
system every 105~110 thousand years?
~ BG
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
[SNIP]
>
> As of most recently, how close do we get to the Sirius star/solar
> system every 105~110 thousand years?
>
> ~ BG
Thank you - That is an interesting point. With respect to:
http://www.geocities.com/bradguth/gv-sirius-trek.htm
I think we also have our own track to consider and this might make the math
a little more complex. Historically, extinction rates generally don't reach
9 families per million years until the global mean temperature falls through
19 degrees Celcius, which is usually very close to where extinction peaks. I
get this by comparing data from:
Futuyma, D. J., 1998, Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Ass.
&
Royer, D. L., Berner, R. A., Montañez, I. P., Tabor, N. J., Beerling, D. J.,
2004, "CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate", GSA Today, v. 14,
pp.4-10, ISSN: 1052-5173
Whereas an interesting point regarding CO2 correlation with cosmic radiation
is made by:
Shaviv, N., Veizer, J., 2004, "CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic
climate: COMMENT", GSA Today, Published online: June 2004,
http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-static&name=i1052-5173-14-3-e4
However, I've put a chart up at http://climate.geologist-1011.net so people
can compare for themselves.
What would prove interesting is if we could identify the enough of the
cycles to come up with some useful climate predictions. Have you seen any of
David Archibald's work? I think he has some interesting ideas...
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
> You respond to everything constructive by changing the subject and/or
> emitting random nonsense. I'm not wasting my time on you.
>
> Andrew Usher
You see, this is what I was getting at before. This sort of response really
adds nothing to the discussion.
Now, in message news:48cf5c83$0$28214$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
I returned to fluid behaviour of the mantle writing:
> Beryllium-10 isotope studies speak to motion of the mantle relative to the
> crust, and the coldness of space speaks to a net temperature gradient for
> the system that can and does drive convection cells at various levels. We
> directly observe convection in the atmosphere and in key ocean circulation
> currents. If we assume that the hottest part is the core as it is with
most
> cooling bodies in natural systems, then it would not be unreasonable to
> presume fluid motion is a product of convection unless there is an
> explanation that is more comprehensive of the available data.
By way of explanation, Beryllium 10 is a cosmogenic radionuclide, and exists
only as a product of cosmic radiation and has a half life of 1,500,000
years; decaying by beta emission to Boron 10. As such, Beryllium 10 as it
occurs in igneous rocks must be originally sourced from the earth's surface.
Outside of xenoliths or enclaves in the magma, the presence of Beryllium 10
has only one other explanation: that of being deposited in ocean basin
sediments that are subsequently subducted, mixed, and transported laterally
in the mantle to the point where the Beryllium 10 bearing magma is
subsequently erupted. Perhaps Wilson (1993, p.31) explains this more clearly
than I do.
Certainly, Part I (the first four chapters) of Wilson (1993) examines the
mantle dynamics models from the perspective of compositional constraints and
compositional data. There is also plenty of material on convective
fractionation whereby magmas become vertically stratified with respect to
density, composition and temperature (Sparks et. al. 1984) - with convection
usually occurring within each layer. This has implications with respect to
mantle processes.
Those references:
Sparks, R. S. J., Huppert, H. E., & Turner, J. S., 1984, "The Fluid Dynamics
of Evolving Magma Chambers." Phil. Trans. Royal Society of London, Volume
A310, pp. 511-534
Wilson, M., 1993, "Igneous Petrogenesis", Chapman & Hall, ISBN:
0-412-53310-3
Enjoy!
Andrew Usher
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e17f709a-1ce4-4823...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You respond to everything constructive by changing the subject and/or
> > emitting random nonsense. I'm not wasting my time on you.
>
> adds nothing to the discussion.
Your responses were adding nothing to the discussion. That's my
point. Now, you've said something interesting, so I will reply.
> > Beryllium-10 isotope studies speak to motion of the mantle relative to the
> > crust, and the coldness of space speaks to a net temperature gradient for
> > the system that can and does drive convection cells at various levels. We
> > directly observe convection in the atmosphere and in key ocean circulation
> > currents. If we assume that the hottest part is the core as it is with
> most
> > cooling bodies in natural systems, then it would not be unreasonable to
> > presume fluid motion is a product of convection unless there is an
> > explanation that is more comprehensive of the available data.
>
> By way of explanation, Beryllium 10 is a cosmogenic radionuclide, and exists
> only as a product of cosmic radiation and has a half life of 1,500,000
> years; decaying by beta emission to Boron 10. As such, Beryllium 10 as it
> occurs in igneous rocks must be originally sourced from the earth's surface.
> Outside of xenoliths or enclaves in the magma, the presence of Beryllium 10
> has only one other explanation: that of being deposited in ocean basin
> sediments that are subsequently subducted, mixed, and transported laterally
> in the mantle to the point where the Beryllium 10 bearing magma is
> subsequently erupted. Perhaps Wilson (1993, p.31) explains this more clearly
> than I do.
This is correct, although you should have explained the first time
what you were getting at. Anyway, this only proves that the mantle
does convect, which wasn't the issue.
> Certainly, Part I (the first four chapters) of Wilson (1993) examines the
> mantle dynamics models from the perspective of compositional constraints and
> compositional data. There is also plenty of material on convective
> fractionation whereby magmas become vertically stratified with respect to
> density, composition and temperature (Sparks et. al. 1984) - with convection
> usually occurring within each layer. This has implications with respect to
> mantle processes.
I will try to access these.
Andrew Usher
John Curtis
> Andrew Usher wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 4:10 pm, John Curtis <j...@curtis.ms> wrote:
>
> >> Below an ocean depth of 3 km, crust (basalt) formation declines.
> >> It is replaced by formation of mantle (dunite) composed
> >> primarily of olivine (peridot).
>
> > For one thing, the mantle does not contain elemental silicon.
> > That invalidates your 'theory' already.
> > Andrew Usher
>
> Correct--
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_(geology)#Characteristics
>
Some elements in Earth's interior exist in their primordial forms:
http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/staff/wjj/geol/geol.html
Most of primordial compounds FeH, MgH (sunspots),
CrH, CaH (L-dwarfs), CH4, H2S, NH3, PH3, GeH4,
AsH3 (Jupiter) decompose in the presence of water or oxygen.
Patterns of solubility and reactivity point to SiH4 (silane)
as the suspect in the formation of crust and mantle,
although its (silane's) detection has been limited to
circumstellar envelopes of IRC+10216 and VY Canis Majoris
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/317127
John Curtis
Andrew Usher
> Some elements in Earth's interior exist in their primordial forms:http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/staff/wjj/geol/geol.html
This doesn't prove anything. Helium is not reactive; silicon is.
> Most of primordial compounds FeH, MgH (sunspots),
> CrH, CaH (L-dwarfs), CH4, H2S, NH3, PH3, GeH4,
> AsH3 (Jupiter) decompose in the presence of water or oxygen.
Yes.
> Patterns of solubility and reactivity point to SiH4 (silane)
> as the suspect in the formation of crust and mantle,
Evidence?
I don't believe silane ever existed on planet Earth or indeed on
any planet in the universe. It's certainly not necessary to
explain the crust and mantle (which have entirely oxidised
silicon).
Andrew Usher
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
True enough, but there is just one little question this raises to the
original issue:
If the mantle convects, how can it be completely solid?
=~=
oriel36
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear,oh dear,oh dear.The convection cell belief is basically a
stationary Earth notion which can join a solid or hollow interior at
roughly the same intellectual level.
Maybe it is too much to ask people to bridge a conceptual leap
between rotational geodynamics and crustal dynamics and evolution but
when it comes to that,perhaps the whole thing is finished anyway.Go
enjoy your 'convection cells' and be proud of it.
Andrew Usher
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> True enough, but there is just one little question this raises to the
> original issue:
> If the mantle convects, how can it be completely solid?
Solids DO flow under sufficient pressure, such as exists within the
mantle. Think of a glacier, made of solid H2O (yes, there are glaciers
entirely below freezing).
The mantle does contain some liquid (near the top and bottom),
but it's not necessary for convection to happen.
Andrew Usher
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Yet the expenditure of energy is nonetheless infered by relative motion
against what must be tremendous frictional force, no?
What do you think is/are the source(s) of this energy?
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the num...@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
news:e4bb5332-0503-4643...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
So, where does the energy that drives observed plate motion against
substantial mantle friction come from, and what evidence do we have other
than plate motion, for the expenditure of that energy (IE specific to
source: eg. rotational deceleration, orbital deceleration, orbital decay,
etc.)...?
--
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the num...@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
oriel36
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e4bb5332-0503-4643...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> [SNIP]
>
> So, where does the energy that drives observed plate motion against
> substantial mantle friction come from, and what evidence do we have other
> than plate motion, for the expenditure of that energy (IE specific to
> source: eg. rotational deceleration, orbital deceleration, orbital decay,
> etc.)...?
>
My dear man,nobody kept an eye on planetary shape when discussing the
Earth's interior and I most certainly am not going to remind people
who are supposed to be doing their jobs that differential rotation is
an observed generalised rule for rotating compositions in a viscous
state.How the Earth and its 40 km spherical deviation is going to
remain exempt from rotational dynamics and the specifics of that
dynamic is anyone's guess but arguing with people who are fully intent
in ignoring a rotating Earth would not be my idea of enjoyment.
Again,be proud of your stationary Earth 'convection cell; ' mechanism
and all the vocabulary surrounding it.
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
On Sep 20, 11:04 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e4bb5332-0503-4643...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> [SNIP]
>
> So, where does the energy that drives observed plate motion against
> substantial mantle friction come from, and what evidence do we have other
> than plate motion, for the expenditure of that energy (IE specific to
> source: eg. rotational deceleration, orbital deceleration, orbital decay,
> etc.)...?
>
"My dear man,nobody kept an eye on planetary shape when discussing the
Earth's interior and I most certainly am not going to remind people
who are supposed to be doing their jobs that differential rotation is
an observed generalised rule for rotating compositions in a viscous
state.How the Earth and its 40 km spherical deviation is going to
remain exempt from rotational dynamics and the specifics of that
dynamic is anyone's guess but arguing with people who are fully intent
in ignoring a rotating Earth would not be my idea of enjoyment."
[SNIP]
No-one is ignoring a rotating earth, nor the "oblate spheroid" shape. If you
don't present your case, and you don't present solid verifiable
substantiative evidence, how can you expect anyone to adopt your conclusion?
Convection by an internal heat source confirmed in both parts by geological
activity, is further confirmed by differential motion of plates and
confluent motion of mantle material relative to plate motion as confirmed by
Beryllium 10 isotope studies (Wilson, 1993). IE convergences and divergences
of surface features of a system such as plates are most effectively
explained by convection, especially when material is known to flow under the
plates confluently.
Rotational artefacts such as the Coriolus effect manifest themselves in
rotational subsystems whose axes of rotation are roughly perpendicular to
the earth's surface, such as cyclones and anti-cyclones. However, vertical
atmospheric motion is mostly heat driven; by convection.
The fact that rotation of plates about axes roughly perpendicular to the
earth's surface is far smaller, if at all measurable, than the differential
motion of the plates as characterised by convergence and divergence; can be
explained by the presence of both greater friction (due to higher viscosity)
and greater heat.
However, with respect to plate motion, Coriolus rotations if observable,
still can neither explain the measurable system of convergent and divergent
plate boundaries that are observed nor the confluent motion of mantle
material relative to plate motion as confirmed by Beryllium 10 isotope
studies (Wilson, 1993). The Coriolus effect may on the other hand,
contribute to the motion and alteration of convection cells themselves, but
I suspect the available evidence may be a little thin for this level of
conjectural detail to be considered scientific.
This is an invitation to shower us all with relevant references from the
peer-reviewed literature showing just how much data really is available to
support your conclusions. If you've done it all before, it's only a CTRL+C,
CTRL+V sequence away - so much easier than typing it all out from scratch.
Recommended reading:
Wilson, M., 1993, "Igneous Petrogenesis", Chapman & Hall, ISBN:
0-412-53310-3
oriel36
No offence,but I am under no onus to prove anything nor do I care
whether you or anyone else can appreciate fluid dynamics of a
rotating viscous interior.Once I hear Coriolis mentioned I know that I
do not have the attention of genuine or competent individuals,that is
not a slight on you,just something I know from experience.When the
guys look at sphericity and differential rotation via stellar
dynamics and then apply the same generalised principles of fluid
dynamics to the Earth , it may be possible to move on to surface
correlations but without the acknowledgement of the specifics of
rotational dynamics as regards to the spherical deviation I would be
wasting my time.
I do not get any satisfaction from pointing out that the rotating
Earth and viscous interior has geological consequences to people who
are absolutely intent in ignoring it or throwing worthless
vocabularistic voodoo back at me as some excuse for a response.
> Convection by an internal heat source confirmed in both parts by geological
> activity, is further confirmed by differential motion of plates and
> confluent motion of mantle material relative to plate motion as confirmed by
> Beryllium 10 isotope studies (Wilson, 1993). IE convergences and divergences
> of surface features of a system such as plates are most effectively
> explained by convection, especially when material is known to flow under the
> plates confluently.
Convection cells require no association with planetary shape and
rotation and that leaves nothing to discuss,at least for me.When
genuine people who are serious about their jobs start to see the
possibilities afforded by organising the viscous interior around a
rotational dynamic and then link planetary shape with crustal motion/
evolution then points can be argued over but not before then.
don findlay
Number Eleven - GPEMC! wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e4bb5332-0503-4643...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> [SNIP]
>
> So, where does the energy that drives observed plate motion against
> substantial mantle friction come from, and what evidence do we have other
> than plate motion, for the expenditure of that energy (IE specific to
> source: eg. rotational deceleration, orbital deceleration, orbital decay,
> etc.)...?
Plate Tectonics says that the continental lithosphere.forces the
oceanic lithosphere down. Then once it's going down the engine of
Plate Tectonics is set in motion. Without "forcing down" subduction
wouldn't happen, and since Plate Tectonics is driven by subduction you
could say that it really is driven by this 'forcing down'.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/fails.html#forced%20down
So to answer your question the energy comes from the crust doing
nothing except sitting there minding its own business.
don findlay
Number Eleven - GPEMC! wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f05b54d2-86a8-44ec...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 20, 11:04 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
> <eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> > "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:e4bb5332-0503-4643...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > So, where does the energy that drives observed plate motion against
> > substantial mantle friction come from, and what evidence do we have other
> > than plate motion, for the expenditure of that energy (IE specific to
> > source: eg. rotational deceleration, orbital deceleration, orbital decay,
> > etc.)...?
> >
>
> "My dear man,nobody kept an eye on planetary shape when discussing the
> Earth's interior and I most certainly am not going to remind people
> who are supposed to be doing their jobs that differential rotation is
> an observed generalised rule for rotating compositions in a viscous
> state.How the Earth and its 40 km spherical deviation is going to
> remain exempt from rotational dynamics and the specifics of that
> dynamic is anyone's guess but arguing with people who are fully intent
> in ignoring a rotating Earth would not be my idea of enjoyment."
>
> [SNIP]
>
> No-one is ignoring a rotating earth, nor the "oblate spheroid" shape.
You might not be, but Plate Tectonics is. Both are irrelevant to the
mechanism of Plate Tectonics.
> If you
> don't present your case, and you don't present solid verifiable
> substantiative evidence, how can you expect anyone to adopt your conclusion?
>
> Convection by an internal heat source confirmed in both parts by geological
> activity, is further confirmed by differential motion of plates and
> confluent motion of mantle material relative to plate motion as confirmed by
> Beryllium 10 isotope studies (Wilson, 1993). IE convergences and divergences
> of surface features of a system such as plates are most effectively
> explained by convection, especially when material is known to flow under the
> plates confluently.
You're behind the times in the most recent shift in the goalposts of
Plate Tectonics. Plate Tectonics is now considered to be driven by
subduction, i.e., not convection driven by motion from the inside, but
from the motion of the outside of the lithospheric shell.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/fails.html#uyeda
>
> Rotational artefacts such as the Coriolus effect manifest themselves in
> rotational subsystems whose axes of rotation are roughly perpendicular to
> the earth's surface, such as cyclones and anti-cyclones. However, vertical
> atmospheric motion is mostly heat driven; by convection.
The rupture of the crust and the emplacement of the Pacific is
entirely described by the swivelling open of the continents in the
Pacific region ('coriolis' effect in the lithosphere)
http://users.indigo.net.au/don
The big problem for Plate Tectonics is that the same structures that
describe this also describe the growth of the planet.
>
> The fact that rotation of plates about axes roughly perpendicular to the
> earth's surface is far smaller, if at all measurable, than the differential
> motion of the plates as characterised by convergence and divergence; can be
> explained by the presence of both greater friction (due to higher viscosity)
> and greater heat.
Exactly. Friction and heat and what Plate Tectonics is all about. The
shape of the planet and the fact that it is spinning is irrelevant.
It has been said here that compared to the power of convection the
heat generated by the Earth's rotation (/differential rotation) is
point twenty nine zeros of insignificance.
>
> However, with respect to plate motion, Coriolus rotations if observable,
> still can neither explain the measurable system of convergent and divergent
> plate boundaries that are observed nor the confluent motion of mantle
> material relative to plate motion as confirmed by Beryllium 10 isotope
> studies (Wilson, 1993). The Coriolus effect may on the other hand,
> contribute to the motion and alteration of convection cells themselves, but
> I suspect the available evidence may be a little thin for this level of
> conjectural detail to be considered scientific.
The entire global structure of the planet describes rotational (and
growth) dynamics. (Ignored in plate Tectonics.)
>
> This is an invitation to shower us all with relevant references from the
> peer-reviewed literature showing just how much data really is available to
> support your conclusions. If you've done it all before, it's only a CTRL+C,
> CTRL+V sequence away - so much easier than typing it all out from scratch.
Forget Peer Review. After half a century up a backwater based on
convenient assumptions and dodgy arithmetic it needs dragging into the
present by the short and curlies. People can begin with the simple
logic, which says that if subduction operates, then Plate Tectonics
cannot happen:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subfar.html
Delete the link back to the *nonsense/ page for an index to the
rubbish of Plate Tectonics.
(You're falling in the trap of thinking that a billion Chinese can't
be wong.)
oriel36
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> This is an invitation to shower us all with relevant references from the
> peer-reviewed literature showing just how much data really is available to
> support your conclusions. If you've done it all before, it's only a CTRL+C,
> CTRL+V sequence away - so much easier than typing it all out from scratch.
>
> Recommended reading:
> Wilson, M., 1993, "Igneous Petrogenesis", Chapman & Hall, ISBN:
> 0-412-53310-3
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the num...@timothycasey.info to email.
I do not complain that rotational dynamics is not a subject of
discussion in respect to the continuing evolution of crustal geology
and surface consequences of that motion,as far as I am concerned,work
can go on without being particularly concerned about the internal
mechanism,at least up to a point.The problem is that the 'established
idea of 'convection cells' and the organisation of interior
composition to suit that idea is creating more difficulties than it
solves,the crustal evolution off the mid Atlantic ridge being a clear
indication of a rotational component.
I can forego the usual complaints of peer review,if a person is not up
to appreciating rotational dynamics or wishes to remain at their level
of understanding there is no reason to argue against this self-
moderation imposed on rotational dynamics of the viscous interior.I
can give you a broad view of what happens when people cannot alter
their position from stationary Earth concepts such as Galileo's
observations on those who operate at a lower intellectual and
intutive level -
SALV. "The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I
have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so
much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be
withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of
the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that
some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because
of
their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed
idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no
matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant
acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward
against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with
disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside
themselves with passion, some of them would not be backward even about
scheming to suppress and silence their adversaries. I have had some
experience of this myself.
SAGR. I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its
premises or establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should
have said discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a
conclusion which for them is already established and nailed down. No
good can come of dealing with such people, especially to the extent
that their company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo
Rotational dynamics is a working principle which links planetary
shape with crustal motion under a common differential rotation
dynamic,most already know it whether they now accept it or not is
another matter and out of my control.
Uncle Al
~$200 billion already "loaned"),
<http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/20/treasurys-financial-bailout-proposal-to-congress/>
"Decisions by the Secretary [of the Treasury] pursuant to the
authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency
discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any
administrative agency."
"Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such
subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000."
US GDP 2007 = $13.84 trillion
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/overview.html>
Budget of the United States Government, FY 2007
"For 2007, the Budget forecasts a decline in the deficit to 2.6
percent of GDP, or $354 billion."
It's always a good time to buy ammo. Oh yeah... the US regime has
dusted off draconian laws to interfere with stock trading.
<http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/sec12.html>
For example, the SEC claims that it has legal authority to ban people
from shorting financial stocks "pursuant to its authority in Section
12(k)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934", to quote their press
release.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Andrew Usher
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> > > If the mantle convects, how can it be completely solid?
>
> > Solids DO flow under sufficient pressure, such as exists within the
> > mantle. Think of a glacier, made of solid H2O (yes, there are glaciers
> > entirely below freezing).
>
> > The mantle does contain some liquid (near the top and bottom),
> > but it's not necessary for convection to happen.
>
> Yet the expenditure of energy is nonetheless infered by relative motion
> against what must be tremendous frictional force, no?
>
> What do you think is/are the source(s) of this energy?
Energy is conserved. Convective motion turns heat into
mechanical motion, and frictional/viscous forces turn it back
to heat; none is lost except through the surface.
Andrew Usher
brad
>
> I do not complain that rotational dynamics is not a subject of
> discussion in respect to the continuing evolution of crustal geology
> and surface consequences of that motion,as far as I am concerned,work
> can go on without being particularly concerned about the internal
> mechanism,at least up to a point.The problem is that the 'established
> idea of 'convection cells' and the organisation of interior
> composition to suit that idea is creating more difficulties than it
> solves,the crustal evolution off the mid Atlantic ridge being a clear
> indication of a rotational component.
It is only a coincidence of our lifetime that it has N/S average
strike.
You need to study up on past ridges . At one time all the continents
were clustered around the S Pole . Obviously , rotation couldn't
cause that . Nor would it subsequently cause the E/W ridges needed
to explain their migration away from the pole.
> I can forego the usual complaints of peer review,if a person is not up
> to appreciating rotational dynamics or wishes to remain at their level
> of understanding there is no reason to argue against this self-
> moderation imposed on rotational dynamics of the viscous interior.I
> can give you a broad view of what happens when people cannot alter
> their position from stationary Earth concepts such as Galileo's
> observations on those who operate at a lower intellectual and
> intutive level -
Your entire problem stems from your lack of knowledge of the past.
There are the remains of ancient continental collisions all over the
globe
and they show no bias as relates to planetary rotation.
> Rotational dynamics is a working principle which links planetary
> shape with crustal motion under a common differential rotation.....
No , it isn't !
Brad
oriel36
> On Sep 21, 9:40 am, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I do not complain that rotational dynamics is not a subject of
> > discussion in respect to the continuing evolution of crustal geology
> > and surface consequences of that motion,as far as I am concerned,work
> > can go on without being particularly concerned about the internal
> > mechanism,at least up to a point.The problem is that the 'established
> > idea of 'convection cells' and the organisation of interior
> > composition to suit that idea is creating more difficulties than it
> > solves,the crustal evolution off the mid Atlantic ridge being a clear
> > indication of a rotational component.
>
> It is only a coincidence of our lifetime that it has N/S average
> strike.
I am sorry your reasoning capabilities and those of your colleagues
can only extend to orientation when I have explicitly stated that
generation of oceanic crust of the Mid Atlantic ridge indicates a
global rotational component.If you can explain the development of
crust off the ridge with a stationary Earth 'convection cell' then
good for you but I do not want to hear it.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif
> You need to study up on past ridges . At one time all the continents
> were clustered around the S Pole . Obviously , rotation couldn't
> cause that . Nor would it subsequently cause the E/W ridges needed
> to explain their migration away from the pole.
>
You are really better suited to 'convection cells' level of thinking
and I congratulate you in your defence of that non rotational
mechanism,as you have the ear of everyone else here you can leave me
to enjoy this notion that rotational dynamics have geological
consequences and the specifics which link planetary shape and crustal
evolution using a common mechanism which is observed in other
celestial objects with viscous compositions.Notwithstanding the 40 km
deviation and the second largest geological feature (the Ridge)
boy !,I have very little going for this new insight !
> > I can forego the usual complaints of peer review,if a person is not up
> > to appreciating rotational dynamics or wishes to remain at their level
> > of understanding there is no reason to argue against this self-
> > moderation imposed on rotational dynamics of the viscous interior.I
> > can give you a broad view of what happens when people cannot alter
> > their position from stationary Earth concepts such as Galileo's
> > observations on those who operate at a lower intellectual and
> > intutive level -
>
> Your entire problem stems from your lack of knowledge of the past.
> There are the remains of ancient continental collisions all over the
> globe
> and they show no bias as relates to planetary rotation.
>
> > Rotational dynamics is a working principle which links planetary
> > shape with crustal motion under a common differential rotation.....
>
> No , it isn't !
>
> Brad
Suit yourself !.
I have sworn off throwing magnificent material after bad such as the
excellent possibilities of rotational dynamics as they apply to
planetary shape/crustal motion as opposed to a nonsensical thermal
convection thingie.
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
news:99d23cf6-1d0c-4c67...@a19g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Earlier hypotheses did anticipate the possible role of rotational factors as
documented in the rather dated text:
Bickford, M. E., Bolt, B. A., Broecker, W. A., Brown, G.
E., Bullard, E. C., Ernst, W. G., Hamilton, W., Hartmann, W., Holland, H.
D., Hunt, C. B., Jokela, A., Kaesler, R., Klitgord, K., Le Pichon, X.,
Lewis, J., Londsdale, P., Merrill, W. M., Phinney, R. A., Raup D. M.,
Schopf, J. W., Sharp, R. P., Stevens, P. R., Van Schmus, W. R., 1973,
"Geology Today", CRM Books, California, U.S.A
Now if these ideas did not survive, perhaps it is because the real world
plate motion measurements do not support them...
> > If you
> > don't present your case, and you don't present solid verifiable
> > substantiative evidence, how can you expect anyone to adopt your
conclusion?
> >
> > Convection by an internal heat source confirmed in both parts by
geological
> > activity, is further confirmed by differential motion of plates and
> > confluent motion of mantle material relative to plate motion as
confirmed by
> > Beryllium 10 isotope studies (Wilson, 1993). IE convergences and
divergences
> > of surface features of a system such as plates are most effectively
> > explained by convection, especially when material is known to flow under
the
> > plates confluently.
>
> You're behind the times in the most recent shift in the goalposts of
> Plate Tectonics. Plate Tectonics is now considered to be driven by
> subduction, i.e., not convection driven by motion from the inside, but
> from the motion of the outside of the lithospheric shell.
> http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/fails.html#uyeda
This has nothing to do with the implications of cosmogenic isotope evidence.
If subduction didn't happen, there would be no Beryllium 10 in lavas;
period. If subduction did not happen, there would be lots of billion year
old oceanic crust floating around on the mantle. There isn't and it had to
go somewhere because we know the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old.
These facts stand irrespective of what is argued to drive the system.
> > Rotational artefacts such as the Coriolus effect manifest themselves in
> > rotational subsystems whose axes of rotation are roughly perpendicular
to
> > the earth's surface, such as cyclones and anti-cyclones. However,
vertical
> > atmospheric motion is mostly heat driven; by convection.
>
> The rupture of the crust and the emplacement of the Pacific is
> entirely described by the swivelling open of the continents in the
> Pacific region ('coriolis' effect in the lithosphere)
> http://users.indigo.net.au/don
> The big problem for Plate Tectonics is that the same structures that
> describe this also describe the growth of the planet.
This is not substantiated by real world measurement of plate motion.
> > The fact that rotation of plates about axes roughly perpendicular to the
> > earth's surface is far smaller, if at all measurable, than the
differential
> > motion of the plates as characterised by convergence and divergence; can
be
> > explained by the presence of both greater friction (due to higher
viscosity)
> > and greater heat.
>
> Exactly. Friction and heat and what Plate Tectonics is all about. The
> shape of the planet and the fact that it is spinning is irrelevant.
> It has been said here that compared to the power of convection the
> heat generated by the Earth's rotation (/differential rotation) is
> point twenty nine zeros of insignificance.
No heat is generated by rotation - this is a matter of angular momentum -
which is conserved unless an outside force acts upon it. Some heat may be
generated by gravitational fluctuations. Nuclear material in the earth is
the speculated heat source and this is confirmed by the phenomena of natural
meltdowns such as those evidenced by some west African uranium deposits.
> > However, with respect to plate motion, Coriolus rotations if observable,
> > still can neither explain the measurable system of convergent and
divergent
> > plate boundaries that are observed nor the confluent motion of mantle
> > material relative to plate motion as confirmed by Beryllium 10 isotope
> > studies (Wilson, 1993). The Coriolus effect may on the other hand,
> > contribute to the motion and alteration of convection cells themselves,
but
> > I suspect the available evidence may be a little thin for this level of
> > conjectural detail to be considered scientific.
>
> The entire global structure of the planet describes rotational (and
> growth) dynamics. (Ignored in plate Tectonics.)
There is no evidence for topological growth independent of the incorrect
assertion that subduction does not occur. Subduction does occur as dating
and cosmogenic isotope studies confirm.
> > This is an invitation to shower us all with relevant references from the
> > peer-reviewed literature showing just how much data really is available
to
> > support your conclusions. If you've done it all before, it's only a
CTRL+C,
> > CTRL+V sequence away - so much easier than typing it all out from
scratch.
>
> Forget Peer Review. After half a century up a backwater based on
> convenient assumptions and dodgy arithmetic it needs dragging into the
> present by the short and curlies. People can begin with the simple
> logic, which says that if subduction operates, then Plate Tectonics
> cannot happen:-
> http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subfar.html
The only reason your computer works is because peer-review rejected all the
capacitive-gravity generation nonsense (which incidently has absolutely no
working prototypes in spite of all the U.S. Patents) in favour of
semi-conductor theory, which actually does something useful if applied.
Plate tectonics can be used to predict with a high degree of accuracy, the
range of bulk composition that a given magma will fall into based on the
location of the eruption, and seismic activity for a given location - real
theories have practical applications that work. Expanding earth theory fails
to predict increased seismic and geological activity measured at convergent
margins, nor does expanding earth theory accurately predict oceanic crust
age at convergent margins - something not only predicted accurately by plate
tectonics, but plate tectonics is confirmed by geographic distribution of
fossil assemblages through time as well as being confirmed by the appearance
of that niggly cosmogenic isotope (Beryllium 10) in lavas that without
subduction would have no source of beryllium 10 whatsoever.
> Delete the link back to the *nonsense/ page for an index to the
> rubbish of Plate Tectonics.
>
> (You're falling in the trap of thinking that a billion Chinese can't
> be wong.)
No, I'm following a process that has worked in the past with no indication
of any reason why it should not continue to work in the future while making
my own mind up about what the data means. People sometimes make mistakes,
but there is a thriving demand to be the one who makes the correction. If
you check the science citation index for Royer et. al. (2004), you will no
doubt discover that many more people than Shaviv and Vizier (2004) had
something to say. Lots of people have something to say about Prof. Mann's
hockey stick, and Prof. Wang gets crucified for not checking the evidence
when he claims that the Heat Island Effect is accounted for in the
instrumental temperature graph used by most climate change catastrophists.
oriel36
The fact is that the fractured crust profiles the spherical deviation
of the planet therefore the rotational dynamic and specifically
differential rotation of the viscous interior is already involved in
plate tectonics,it may be just that some are either too dull or too
impressed with their own stationary Earth notions to take notice.Plate
tectonics is an excellent working principle that is being
systematically destroyed by a stationary Earth 'convection cell'
mechanism and an interior composition/viscosity designed around that
unfortunate conception ,for those who feel comfortable with the
reasoning for 'convection cells' then have a ball but others may
enjoy something more productive like the fact that the Earth turns at
1000 miles per hour at the Equator and diminishes to 0 miles per hour
at the geographical poles.
I could talk about how the motion of fractured crust across the
spherical deviation as a means to facilitate subduction or as a means
to explain intraplate events among other things but perhaps when I
have to descend to the level of convection cell adherents,it becomes a
waste of information and effort,it is also draining.When an
institution or group of individuals decide to take on board a better
approach to evolutionary geology then perhaps down the line a
discussion based on chemicals can emerge but without a rotational
influence,it may as well be a flat Earth mechanism for crustal motion.
Rotational dynamics is such a vibrant topic that can be appreciated by
just about anyone with a taste for adventurous thinking where it is so
natural to make the leap from rotational dynamics to crustal dynamics
that is actually harder to remain with stationary Earth notions.I
think I have said enough for genuine people to get the point at this
stage and can drop it for a while.
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
news:38c15cb0-dedd-4aee...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
Where there is a temperature gradient, you can't leave convection out of the
picture. Differential rotation could explain relative motion of convection
cells, if the historical sequence of transform fault activity confirms that
regions of upwelling (and thus adjacent convection cells) are actually
moving with respect to one another. Likewise movement of backarc volcanic
activity through time, could also be used to test the idea.
This appears to make sense, because high and low pressure systems in the
atmosphere are also in flux, with differential rotation driven by both
latiduinal and vertical thermal gradients. However, in absence of solar
radiative effect, the question this raises is whether there would be a
latitidinal thermal gradient in the mantle? Suffice it to say that the
discovery of such a beastie would, with or without an explanation, make very
good copy for the likes of Nature or Science. It would be a great coup for
whoever authors the hypothetically published findings - but what could cause
latitudinal thermal gradient in the mantle?
In any case, the removal of the latitudinal thermal gradient from the
atmosphere would simplify atmospheric patterns, no? Perhaps all that would
be left may be thermal convection...?
oriel36
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:38c15cb0-dedd-4aee...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> [SNIP]
>
> Where there is a temperature gradient, you can't leave convection out of the
> picture. Differential rotation could explain relative motion of convection
> cells, if the historical sequence of transform fault activity confirms that
> regions of upwelling (and thus adjacent convection cells) are actually
> moving with respect to one another. Likewise movement of backarc volcanic
> activity through time, could also be used to test the idea.
>
> This appears to make sense, because high and low pressure systems in the
> atmosphere are also in flux, with differential rotation driven by both
> latiduinal and vertical thermal gradients. However, in absence of solar
> radiative effect, the question this raises is whether there would be a
> latitidinal thermal gradient in the mantle? Suffice it to say that the
> discovery of such a beastie would, with or without an explanation, make very
> good copy for the likes of Nature or Science. It would be a great coup for
> whoever authors the hypothetically published findings - but what could cause
> latitudinal thermal gradient in the mantle?
>
> In any case, the removal of the latitudinal thermal gradient from the
> atmosphere would simplify atmospheric patterns, no? Perhaps all that would
> be left may be thermal convection...?
>
I strongly suggest that you remain with your thermal 'convection cell'
mechanism where you can do no harm and I have indicated that dealing
with fluid dynamics and differential rotation is simply a matter for
those who can handle it regardless of the geological consequences.
I am content to remain with the basic trajectory of reasoning which
links generalised rules for rotating bodies in a viscous state with
both spherical deviation and differential rotation,the subsequent
geological affects on the thin and fractured crust of the Earth
follows and from there to surface correlations and features.
I have no stomach for grandstanding on a issue that simply directs
people to already known principles which link shape with rotation with
more detail such as differential rotation added.It is clear,it is in
that form a very simple working principle with incredible
possibilities to explain meta features such as the Mid Atlantic ridge
and development off the entire length of the ridge.
http://www.platetectonics.com/oceanfloors/images/Africa-South_America_4.jpg
You had your answer in terms of the valuable information which links
the profile of the fractured crust with rotational dynamics yet it is
wasted as so many times before.I think too much of the geologists such
as Steno and Wegener to be seen arguing for a rotating Earth and its
consequences via the viscous interior.
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
[SNIP]
"You had your answer in terms of the valuable information which links
the profile of the fractured crust with rotational dynamics yet it is
wasted as so many times before."
[SNIP]
Yet I am unconvinced of this link, which remains unsubstantiated. No
references, not even a textbook...
--
oriel36
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It has been known for centuries that the Earth is not a perfect sphere
and deviates in the region of 40km and while the basic fact that this
deviation is due to the daily rotation of the Earth, the details of
viscosity composition and behavior of the rotating interior are
scarce. In all probability with all the focus on a geostationary
thermal ‘convection cells’ and the interior designed around that
mechanism, geologists have forgotten or omitted considerations
about the planet’s shape and most of the basic working principles for
tectonic activity should arise from the rotational details
surrounding the spherical deviation.
So ,it appears that people approach either the spherical deviation or
plate tectonics are in somewhat of a bind, at least one that is self-
imposed. As differential rotation occurs in all rotating celestial
bodies with a viscous composition and it is already known that
variations in Equatorial speed affect sphericity for a given
composition ,there is no reason to believe that the interior
composition of the Earth is exempt from the same rotational elements
With no great leap of imagination, I assume most people could adjust
to the mechanism for creating both the spherical deviation and as
the mechanism for crustal motion via the explanation for the global
seam that split’s the Atlantic Ocean, commonly known as the MAR or
MOR. A global feature such as the ridge requires a global solution and
only the specifics of rotational dynamics can satisfy such a feature
whereas localised ‘convection cells cannot.
It is remarkable that people can actually continue discussing geology
of the planet without taking notice of the most basic of all facts -
it is round and it is also rotating and that rotation has geological
consequences.
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
[SNIP]
1. Convection cells are not assumed to be geostationary, and what we know of
their motion is what we measure along transform faults.
2. Differential rotation only occurs in some but definitely *not*all*
"celestial bodies" and is countered by internal friction.
3. MARs and MORs do not explain the Great Dividing Range, the Alps and the
Himalyas; whereas thermal convection, plate tectonics, and subduction does.
4. Thermal convection is supported by comsogenic isotope studies as is
subduction.
5. Rate of subduction is measured directly by GPS monitoring.
See http://expansion.geologist-1011.net for some references...
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the num...@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security…
oriel36
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:34fcc1a2-fd3d-4ebb...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> [SNIP]
>
> 1. Convection cells are not assumed to be geostationary, and what we know of
> their motion is what we measure along transform faults.
>
Convection cells require no association with the planet's shape and
spherical deviation and more importantly,require no link with
rotational dynamics.
> 2. Differential rotation only occurs in some but definitely *not*all*
> "celestial bodies" and is countered by internal friction.
>
I will not descend to a level where a rotating celestial object withy
a viscous composition is exempt from fluid dynamics and implied
differential rotation.If you specify that a rotating viscous object is
exempt then good for you but I would not wish to hear about it.
> 3. MARs and MORs do not explain the Great Dividing Range, the Alps and the
> Himalyas; whereas thermal convection, plate tectonics, and subduction does.
>
Let me paraphrase that for you - " The Mid Atlantic Ridge and the Mid
Oceanic Ridge do not explain....".Enough said !.
> 4. Thermal convection is supported by comsogenic isotope studies as is
> subduction.
>
Good for you,thermal convection has the same appearances as a highly
elaborate geocentric scheme in the absence of rotational dynamics,in
this respect I concur with Copernicus -
". . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with
numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone
including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster
would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of
their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found
either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in
something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have
happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the
hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which
follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus,
1543
> 5. Rate of subduction is measured directly by GPS monitoring.
>
I actually require people who are serious about the matter and who can
expand on the arguments which link rotational dynamics with
evolutionary geology in a meaningful way,so far it hasn't happened but
it is one of these things where the point of departure is so radical,
much like the difference between geocentric and heliocentric
precepts,that the usual slow assimilation does not apply.
> Seehttp://expansion.geologist-1011.netfor some references...
>
All this means is that the exquisite link between planetary shape and
crustal dynamics via fluid dynamics of the rotating interior replacing
a non-rotating (geostationary) mechanism such as 'convection cells'
remains out of bounds.People are literally arguing for a stationary
Earth notion and that is remarkable given that when approaching other
rotating celestial objects with viscous compositions there is not the
slightest problem with the correlation between maximum Equatorial
speed,differential rotation and spherical deviation.The addition of
the fractured thin crust profiling the internal rotational dynamics
should provide for a more vibrant approach to crustal evolution and
motion.
Take care now and be proud of you thermally driven 'convection
cells',you have promoted your ideas in a fair and civil way and I
could not ask for more than that.
don findlay
Number Eleven - GPEMC! wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:34fcc1a2-fd3d-4ebb...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> [SNIP]
>
> 1. Convection cells are not assumed to be geostationary, and what we know of
> their motion is what we measure along transform faults.
And what motion is that, now? What we do 'know' is that beyond the
ridge offsets the 'cells' (i.e. the ocean floor as a whole) all move
as one, i.e., that there is only one cell - the Pacific. And if you
want to talk about The Americas (north and south) The Atlantic, Africa
and the entirety of Asia, it all moves as one too, overriding the
Pacific from opposite sides. So what sort of a convection cell is
that, ...where one overrides the other - on a global scale? What by
your measure drives the oceanic one (which goes over the top) and
what drives the oceanic one (which goes underneath)? ....because by
Plate Tectonics' measure both are driven by the so-called subducting
slab. (You know, ... that little subducting slab... The whole of the
world's crust/ lithosphere, ... to a thousand kilometres depth, ..set
in motion by the cooling slab...
Your shot.
PS I'll bet you think Plate Tectonics is about thermally driven
convection, ...from the heat inside the Earth. Well not according to
Plate Tectonics it isn't. It's driven by the gravity-sinking motion
of the cooled 'slab' Like the sinking Titanic drives ocean currents.
brad
> >news:34fcc1a2-fd3d-4ebb...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > [SNIP]
>
> > 1. Convection cells are not assumed to be geostationary, and what we know of
> > their motion is what we measure along transform faults.
>
> And what motion is that, now? What we do 'know' is that beyond the
> ridge offsets the 'cells' (i.e. the ocean floor as a whole) all move
> as one, i.e., that there is only one cell - the Pacific.
What we do know is that the dominant spreading center (in terms of the
Pacific Plate)
is the MAR. Why else would the Pacific be closing from East and West ?
You are
attempting to define this argument on your terms and then asking
questions based
on insufficient initial conditions.
And if you
> want to talk about The Americas (north and south) The Atlantic, Africa
> and the entirety of Asia, it all moves as one too, overriding the
> Pacific from opposite sides.
More evidence for the dominance of the MAR today. BTW , on an
expanding planet
why would there be any overriding at all ? The East Pacific Rise is
beneath N . America .
When do you think expansion will re- expose it ?
> So what sort of a convection cell is
> that, ...where one overrides the other - on a global scale?
One (Pacific) losing its influence on the Geostructure of
the planet. Its energy has diminished .
>What by
> your measure drives the oceanic one (which goes over the top) and
> what drives the oceanic one (which goes underneath)? ....because by
> Plate Tectonics' measure both are driven by the so-called subducting
> slab.
There is more than one theory of PT .
(You know, ... that little subducting slab... The whole of the
> world's crust/ lithosphere, ... to a thousand kilometres depth, ..set
> in motion by the cooling slab...
Set in motion by the cooling slab ? How logical is it that a smaller
mass
controls the motion of a larger one without an infusion of extra
energy ?
> Your shot.
> PS I'll bet you think Plate Tectonics is about thermally driven
> convection, ...from the heat inside the Earth. Well not according to
> Plate Tectonics it isn't. It's driven by the gravity-sinking motion
> of the cooled 'slab' Like the sinking Titanic drives ocean currents.
Don't attempt to set parameters and then demand compliance .
Your own ideas have many more problems you conveniently ignore.
Brad
don findlay
brad wrote:
> On Oct 13, 9:25�am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > Number Eleven - GPEMC! wrote:
> >
> > > "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:34fcc1a2-fd3d-4ebb...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > > [SNIP]
> >
> > > 1. Convection cells are not assumed to be geostationary, and what we know of
> > > their motion is what we measure along transform faults.
> >
> > And what motion is that, now? �What we do 'know' is that beyond the
> > ridge offsets the 'cells' (i.e. the ocean floor as a whole) all move
> > as one, i.e., that there is only one cell - the Pacific.
>
> What we do know is that the dominant spreading center (in terms of the
> Pacific Plate)
> is the MAR. Why else would the Pacific be closing from East and West ?
If the 'AR' is the dominant spreading centre, ..you mean this is what
is causing the Pacific to close - by causing the the Asian and
American continents to override? (We'd better call you PhysiBrad)
(certainly not GeoBrad anymore).
> You are
> attempting to define this argument on your terms and then asking
> questions based
> on insufficient initial conditions.
Yeah? How?
> And if you
> > want to talk about The Americas (north and south) The Atlantic, Africa
> > and the entirety of Asia, it all moves as one too, overriding the
> > Pacific from opposite sides.
>
> More evidence for the dominance of the MAR today. BTW , on an
> expanding planet
> why would there be any overriding at all ?
Spin. The Earth is spinning, don't you know...? And spinning
causes dislocation on *ALL* 'shells of weakness'. (e.g., the
Asthenosphere/ transition zone/ and core mantle boundary as we know
them.
The East Pacific Rise is
> beneath N . America .
> When do you think expansion will re- expose it ?
It probably won't, ..knowing the spin things are in.
>
> >�So what sort of a convection cell is
> > that, ...where one overrides the other - on a global scale?
>
> One (Pacific) losing its influence on the Geostructure of
> the planet. Its energy has diminished .
Sorry. Nope. Subduction drives this mother. Subduction is the
driver, so subduction is the mother. The mother cannot diminish in
the face of its progeny.
>
> �>What by
> > your measure drives the oceanic one (which goes over the top) �and
> > what drives the oceanic one (which goes underneath)? ....because by
> > Plate Tectonics' measure both are driven by the so-called subducting
> > slab.
>
> There is more than one theory of PT .
Yeah, ..you don't say! As many as necessary. That's the problem.
>
>
> (You know, ... �that little subducting slab... �The whole of the
> > world's crust/ lithosphere, ... to a thousand kilometres depth, ..set
> > in motion by the cooling slab...
>
>
>
> Set in motion by the cooling slab ? How logical is it that a smaller
> mass
> controls the motion of a larger one without an infusion of extra
> energy ?
It isn't, ..but that's what Plate Tectonics would have you believe.
>
> > Your shot.
>
> > PS I'll bet you think Plate Tectonics is about thermally driven
> > convection, ...from the heat inside the Earth. �Well not according to
> > Plate Tectonics it isn't. �It's driven by the gravity-sinking motion
> > of the cooled 'slab' � Like the sinking Titanic drives ocean currents.
>
> Don't attempt to set parameters and then demand compliance .
> Your own ideas have many more problems you conveniently ignore.
Like what? (...apart from how is mass created, which is everyone's
problem - even Plate Tectonics')
>
>
> Brad (Fizzy-brad)
Come back Brad. Be rescued. Be Geo.
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
>
>
> Number Eleven - GPEMC! wrote:
>
> > "oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
news:34fcc1a2-fd3d-4ebb...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > 1. Convection cells are not assumed to be geostationary, and what we
know of
> > their motion is what we measure along transform faults.
>
> And what motion is that, now? What we do 'know' is that beyond the
> ridge offsets the 'cells' (i.e. the ocean floor as a whole) all move
> as one, i.e., that there is only one cell - the Pacific.
It's not necessarily that simple. Oriel36 seems ver interested in the
prospect of differential rotation within the mantle. I can't find any direct
evidence such as applicable mantle shear zones, but this does not discount
the possibility. Multiple cells are more likely.
> And if you
> want to talk about The Americas (north and south) The Atlantic, Africa
> and the entirety of Asia, it all moves as one too, overriding the
> Pacific from opposite sides. So what sort of a convection cell is
> that, ...where one overrides the other - on a global scale? What by
> your measure drives the oceanic one (which goes over the top) and
> what drives the oceanic one (which goes underneath)? ....because by
> Plate Tectonics' measure both are driven by the so-called subducting
> slab. (You know, ... that little subducting slab... The whole of the
> world's crust/ lithosphere, ... to a thousand kilometres depth, ..set
> in motion by the cooling slab...
>
> Your shot.
Multiple, possibly irregular convection cells - we don't know the shape or
number of cells, but we do know from cosmogenic isotope studies that mantle
and crust motion is confluent regardless of the details that cannot be
measured. The fact that the detailed internal dynamics of a storm are beyond
comprehension does not disproved the existence of the storm.
> PS I'll bet you think Plate Tectonics is about thermally driven
> convection, ...from the heat inside the Earth. Well not according to
> Plate Tectonics it isn't. It's driven by the gravity-sinking motion
> of the cooled 'slab' Like the sinking Titanic drives ocean currents.
Chicken and egg problems are solved through elementary recursive analysis -
usually by imposing a hermetic or "well-formed" hierarchy on the definitions
of process stages in order to define a hierarchy of cycles. The heat was
there before slab-pull existed - therefore the system is heat driven and
slab-pull is secondary. I'm forgetting; subduction is directly measured,
using GPS equipment (see http://expansion.geologist-1011.net for more
detail). Subduction is verified by scientific observation.
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the num...@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
On Oct 13, 10:16 am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:34fcc1a2-fd3d-4ebb...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> 1. Convection cells are not assumed to be geostationary, and what we know
>>of
>> their motion is what we measure along transform faults.
>>
>Convection cells require no association with the planet's shape and
>spherical deviation and more importantly,require no link with
>rotational dynamics.
Exactly, meaning the shape is irrelevant to the existence of thermal
convection cells.
>> 2. Differential rotation only occurs in some but definitely *not*all*
>> "celestial bodies" and is countered by internal friction.
>I will not descend to a level where a rotating celestial object withy
>a viscous composition is exempt from fluid dynamics and implied
>differential rotation.If you specify that a rotating viscous object is
>exempt then good for you but I would not wish to hear about it.
Differential rotation needs an energy source and a mechanism to drive it
against friction.
>> 3. MARs and MORs do not explain the Great Dividing Range, the Alps and
>>the
>> Himalyas; whereas thermal convection, plate tectonics, and subduction
does.
>Let me paraphrase that for you - " The Mid Atlantic Ridge and the Mid
>Oceanic Ridge do not explain....".Enough said !.
Let me repeat paraphrase myself! Rifting does not explain the Great Dividing
Range, the Alps and the Himalayas; whereas thermal convection, plate
tectonics, and subduction does. How is this so? Because an expanding earth
devoid of subductive processes would not deform at the thickest part of the
crust (continental) but at the thinnest most ductile part of the crust. Only
subduction can explain why mountain building takes place at convergent
boundaries instead of divergent boundaries.
>> 4. Thermal convection is supported by cosmogenic isotope studies as is
>> subduction.
>Good for you,thermal convection has the same appearances as a highly
>elaborate geocentric scheme in the absence of rotational dynamics,in
>this respect I concur with Copernicus -
>". . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with
>numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone
>including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
>different places, well painted indeed, but not modelled from the same
>body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster
>would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of
>their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found
>either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in
>something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have
>happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the
>hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which
>follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus,
>1543
Nothing else explains the outcomes of these cosmogenic isotope studies I
mention at http://expansion.geologist-1011.net, and that leaves us with the
best explanation to date - which just happened to be thermal convection (the
rule rather than the exception in fluid systems possessing a thermal
gradient capable of overcoming internal friction)
>> 5. Rate of subduction is measured directly by GPS monitoring.
>>
>I actually require people who are serious about the matter and who can
>expand on the arguments which link rotational dynamics with
>evolutionary geology in a meaningful way,so far it hasn't happened but
>it is one of these things where the point of departure is so radical,
>much like the difference between geocentric and heliocentric
>precepts,that the usual slow assimilation does not apply.
[SNIP]
Well, your differential mantle rotation might find some support in those
transform faults - but the proof would come from direct measurement of
differential rifting between parts on either side of the transform fault. I
think you'll need to do some very thorough data mining, and it is likely you
may have to put the idea forward as a Ph.D. proposal, and raise funding for
your own measurement project.
If I find anything I think is relevant, I'll make a point of letting you
know.
Good luck - I think you have a lot of work ahead of you...
Spaceman
> news:f3bac409-4260-4905...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 13, 10:16 am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
> <eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:34fcc1a2-fd3d-4ebb...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> [SNIP]
>>>
>>> 1. Convection cells are not assumed to be geostationary, and what
>>> we know of
>>> their motion is what we measure along transform faults.
>>>
>
>> Convection cells require no association with the planet's shape and
>> spherical deviation and more importantly,require no link with
>> rotational dynamics.
>
> Exactly, meaning the shape is irrelevant to the existence of thermal
> convection cells.
>
>
>>> 2. Differential rotation only occurs in some but definitely
>>> *not*all* "celestial bodies" and is countered by internal friction.
>
>> I will not descend to a level where a rotating celestial object withy
>> a viscous composition is exempt from fluid dynamics and implied
>> differential rotation.If you specify that a rotating viscous object
>> is exempt then good for you but I would not wish to hear about it.
>
> Differential rotation needs an energy source and a mechanism to drive
> it against friction.
The Energy source and mechanism would simply be the gravitational
differences that are in effect with an elliptical orbit.
Along with the Moons orbit being a contributing factor and
with the accelerations Earth has fun with when on the return
trip from the furthest point away on elliptical orbit.
The differentials and the power sources are there.
Example:
(perfect orbit) (no differentials after all synced up)
A glass of water sitting on a turntable in perfect orbit and perfect spin
rate of the glass will sync up and no differential change would occur.
It would end up with the water spinning with the glass without
any changes after a while.
(elliptical orbit( differentials in orbit and surrounding forces)
But with an elliptical orbit and accleration of the return
trip and a second attractive force,
(or push force depending what gravity theory you subscribe to)
will cause a differential motion in the water to the glass.
It's all there.
At least I can see it anyway.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
oriel36
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f3bac409-4260-4905...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 13, 10:16 am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
>
> <eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> > "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:34fcc1a2-fd3d-4ebb...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> [SNIP]
>
> >> 1. Convection cells are not assumed to be geostationary, and what we know
> >>of
> >> their motion is what we measure along transform faults.
>
> >Convection cells require no association with the planet's shape and
> >spherical deviation and more importantly,require no link with
> >rotational dynamics.
>
> Exactly, meaning the shape is irrelevant to the existence of thermal
> convection cells.
>
By the same token,rotational dynamics of the viscous interior is
responsible for the 40km deviation from a perfect sphere with the
specifics emerging from differential rotation similar to the
generalised principles which govern the intimate link between maximum
equatorial speeds,differential rotation and spherical deviation in
rotating stellar bodies -
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2001/release_2001_150.html
Spherical deviation is therefore a consequence of fluid dynamics of a
rotating object and while the midriff bulge and rotation has been
known for centuries and doubted by nobody,the specifics of
differential rotation is the most productive approach to explaining
our planet's spherical deviation.With everyone so focused on the
Earth's interior by using thermal convection to explain the evolution
and motion of the fractured crust,they entirely forgot about the
composition and dynamics needed to generate the 40 km deviation.
It is more productive to explain the Earth's spherical deviation via
generalised principles of fluid dynamics than exempt the planet from
the same rules which link rotation to sphericity with the additional
consequence that the second largest geographical feature - the Mid
Atlantic Ridge supports the rotational component due to generation of
crust in proportion off the entire length of the ridge.Because I have
worked with the rotational component for many years and have no
interest in 'convection cells',I am not just intrigued by the
orientation which indicates a rotational component and the creation of
oceanic crust off the entire length of the ridge but by the symmetry
of crustal development between the Americas and Europe/Africa -
http://spp1144.pangaea.de/Atlantic_Fig1.jpg
> >> 2. Differential rotation only occurs in some but definitely *not*all*
> >> "celestial bodies" and is countered by internal friction.
> >I will not descend to a level where a rotating celestial object withy
> >a viscous composition is exempt from fluid dynamics and implied
> >differential rotation.If you specify that a rotating viscous object is
> >exempt then good for you but I would not wish to hear about it.
>
> Differential rotation needs an energy source and a mechanism to drive it
> against friction.
>
Differential rotation is a consequence of fluid dynamics occurring in
a rotating celestial body with a viscous composition.
> >> 3. MARs and MORs do not explain the Great Dividing Range, the Alps and
> >>the
> >> Himalyas; whereas thermal convection, plate tectonics, and subduction
>
> does.
>
> >Let me paraphrase that for you - " The Mid Atlantic Ridge and the Mid
> >Oceanic Ridge do not explain....".Enough said !.
>
> Let me repeat paraphrase myself! Rifting does not explain the Great Dividing
> Range, the Alps and the Himalayas; whereas thermal convection, plate
> tectonics, and subduction does. How is this so?
You are mixing surface correlations such as mountain ridges with
crustal generation off the mid Atlantic Ridge whereas there are very
good reasons behind partially decoupling crustal generation off the
oceanic ridge from continental collisions and some genuine geologists
are actually attempting to do this.They will not accomplish anything
unless they distance themselves from an interior organised around
convection cells however,I just cannot see how they are going to
ignore crustal generation off the entire length of MAR for much
longer and that means looking closely at rotational dynamics.
You are guessing of course and throwing the kitchen sink at supporting
thermal convection but I need people who can settle down and look at
the major features first and then apply local correlations afterwards.
Because an expanding earth
> devoid of subductive processes would not deform at the thickest part of the
> crust (continental) but at the thinnest most ductile part of the crust. Only
> subduction can explain why mountain building takes place at convergent
> boundaries instead of divergent boundaries.
>
The old tendency is to use surface correlations to invest substance in
convection cells whereas the new approach is to apply a solution for
spherical deviation first and then rework the details of fluid
dynamics to crustal generation with the Mid Atlantic Ridge serving the
purpose of linking the rotational elements with surface
features.Mountain building therefore exists as a secondary geological
consequence but this is a satisfactory means to allow crustal
evolution to emerge as a consequence of planetary rotation while the
spherical deviation to dictates viscosity,composition and behavior of
the interior.
It is like having an enormous clue - what does it take for the
interior to deviate from a perfect sphere by 40km with a maximum
Equatorial speed of 1000 miles diminishing to 0 miles at the
geographical poles and not a serious person in sight to consider
this never mind the geological consequences !.
>
>
> >> 4. Thermal convection is supported by cosmogenic isotope studies as is
> >> subduction.
> >Good for you,thermal convection has the same appearances as a highly
> >elaborate geocentric scheme in the absence of rotational dynamics,in
> >this respect I concur with Copernicus -
> >". . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with
> >numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone
> >including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
> >different places, well painted indeed, but not modelled from the same
> >body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster
> >would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of
> >their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found
> >either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in
> >something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have
> >happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the
> >hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which
> >follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus,
> >1543
>
> Nothing else explains the outcomes of these cosmogenic isotope studies I
> mention athttp://expansion.geologist-1011.net, and that leaves us with the
> best explanation to date - which just happened to be thermal convection (the
> rule rather than the exception in fluid systems possessing a thermal
> gradient capable of overcoming internal friction)
>
Geostationary means the Earth is not moving/rotating therefore thermal
convection is a geostationary Earth notion.There are geological
outriggers of spherical deviation insofar as the motion of the crust
across the less than spherical profile of the Earth has geological
consequences but again,nobody who is serious or excited about the
matter.
> >> 5. Rate of subduction is measured directly by GPS monitoring.
>
> >I actually require people who are serious about the matter and who can
> >expand on the arguments which link rotational dynamics with
> >evolutionary geology in a meaningful way,so far it hasn't happened but
> >it is one of these things where the point of departure is so radical,
> >much like the difference between geocentric and heliocentric
> >precepts,that the usual slow assimilation does not apply.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Well, your differential mantle rotation might find some support in those
> transform faults - but the proof would come from direct measurement of
> differential rifting between parts on either side of the transform fault. I
> think you'll need to do some very thorough data mining, and it is likely you
> may have to put the idea forward as a Ph.D. proposal, and raise funding for
> your own measurement project.
>
> If I find anything I think is relevant, I'll make a point of letting you
> know.
> Good luck - I think you have a lot of work ahead of you...
>
I do not have any work ahead of me,I happen to recognise the daily
rotation of the Earth and extend it to geological consequences such as
planetary shape and crustal motion/evolution and enjoy it.You seem
content with the intricacies of your stationary Earth 'convection
cell' mechanism and you have the citations of many Ph.D's in
support,it does represent very different levels of reasoning but I do
not have any complaints on that matter.