On Mar 24, 7:03 am, "Jean" <jean.len...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Florian a écrit dans le message
1iebzcq.1dhxn5o4dg1n1N%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net>...



Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
SNIP
Concerning the Navier-Stokes equations you certainly remember that the
acceleration of the fluid is proportional to the *gradient* of
pressure.
Right?

non-hydrostatic pressure gradient in the case of an incompressible
fluid.

Again, I'll ask you one more time.
What are equation of motions in the case of a
fluid with just a hydrostatic gradient?

If you are familiar with NS, this should be easy for you.

I'm not particular familiar with NS (after all, I'm far from my field)
but that should be something like that (inviscid fluid):

rho(∂v/∂t+v.del v)=-del p+rho.g

-del p is the pressure gradient component.

Now your turn, could you please finally answer the question:

"Do you agree that the lithostatic pressure gradient is relevant to
buoyancy, yes or no?"

Something tell me that I will nail you a second time today...

After the 1-200 times I've nailed you

In your wildest dreams, or show me the messages ID.

--
Florian

The momentum balance equation for a Newtonian fluid is called the
Navier -Stokes equation.
The equation known as Darcy's law is derived from this equation. This
law forms the basis for ground water motion. It is q = k (h1-h2)/ l
q is called the darcian flux or velocity
h = z + p/rwg " p" contains the hydrostatic pressure
z is the elevation of the base of the manometer relative to some datum where
zo=0

"A general weak conserval'iveform of Navier-Stokes equations expressed with
respect .... where P is the hydrostatic pressure and its expression iswww.springerlink.com/index/3681N56414R12124.pdf"

"... a simplification of the governing Navier-Stokes equations, and has been
shown to .... Modeled and hydrostatic pressure gradients (right panels; ....www.coastal.udel.edu/faculty/jpuleo/RIPPLE/ripple.html"

Jl

I seemed to have missed this.

Lets be clear. Shallow water models represent the ocean thickness
typically in the fashion:

D(x,y,t) = Ho + n(x,y, t)

Where Ho is the undisturbed ocean thickness and n(x,y,t) is the
fluctuating component due to
a long gravity wave or some other disturbance.

The corresponding pressure is P = rg * ( Ho + n(x,y,t) ) where rgHo is
the hyrdostatic pressure, cuz
it is the pressure when there is no topographic disturbance and no
motion.

The dynamic pressure rgn(x,y,t) is what is driving the flow associated
with the long wave. Because long
waves as their name implies, have long wavelengths the pressure
disturbances they produce are felt
at the bottom of the ocean, hence this is what is measured by DART
buoys.

The hydrostatic pressure rgHo disappears from the equation of motion.
Whats left is the dynamic pressure.
Some people refer to using a "local hydrostatic approx.", but
globally, an ocean with a tsunami
moving across it is not in hydrostatic equilibrium.

Stuart

Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Apr 4, 12:08 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Not even 1% because eclogitization is only partial. Even 1% is
ridiculous considering that the mantle is heterogenous.

Heterogenous isotopically, not so much in major element chemistry.

There's a difference.

Are you so sure? Here's Anderson again:

http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/AndersonPEPI2005.pdf

The mantle is swallowing stuff that likely make it very heterogenous,
hence the marble cake model proposed by Allègre.

By the way Stuart, is there any example of well characterized convection
in plastic solids?

Define "plastic". Give me a rheology.

"Plastic solid: A material that deforms continuously and permanently
when submitted to a shearing stress in excess of its yield value."

So give me any example of plastic solids that were oberved to convect.

In mantle convection that is huge. Another boost occurs at the 410km
discontinuity when olivine -> spinel-olivine. That is an exothermic phase
transition, which acts to enhance subductiom.

It is the opposite. Models show that the olivine -> spinel transition is
apparently not favorable to subduction. It slows it down:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-3VGC7YV-
6&_user=5902591&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C0000553
11&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5902591&md5=cf30f65123a56122b3d1d0cd
bf78ee5f



That is in the case of metastability, in which the transition does not
occur at the normal P &T and is delayed to higher Pressure.

Isn't it always the case in slabs?

Yes it might mitigate the effect, but there obervations where the 410k
discontinuity is displaced upwards.

Something is missing in this sentence.

We already discussed the quote and I told you it looked incorrect.

So? Did I twist the quote or not?

Yes, you said he emphasizes density over modulus whereas the quote says
the opposite.

Jeez, did you already forget the point? The point was that for a
material, cooler mean denser. But it does not mean at all that the slab
being cooler than surrounding material, would also be denser than
surrounding material.

Only is its made out of substainially different stuff.

Which is quite the case: mafic crust+ ultramafic lithospheric mantle.



If a slab has a density of 3.0 and his temperature is about 700 K, it
won't be denser than peridotite that has a density about 3.3 at 1200 K..
Get it?

Where do you get a slab density of 3.0?

Well, ok, may be a bit more. The crust (pillow+dikes+Gabbro) has a
density of 2.7 to 3.0 according to you: "basalts has a density of 2.7"
and  "2.7 - 3.0 on the high side".
There is the serpentinized peridotite (density about 2.6) and peridotite
(3.3).

Do you have any reference describing density-temperature relationship
for peridotite?

[...]

In slabs? It might be temperature, it might be composition, it might be
phase, It might be a mix, how would you know? That's all the issue.

Its temperature. You're again trying to muddy the waters.

It is stiffness. And stiffness depends on more than temperature.

[...]

Your invincible ignorance is on par with that of flat earthers.

And you hide your head in the sand.

Could you please explain me that pattern in the framework of plate
tectonics:

http://nachon.free.fr/GE/pacific/Philippines.jpg

If you don't realize that fresh lithopshere is emplaced and overrides
some of the old one, they you must be sick. There is no recycling there,
only new layers that partly superpose over old ones in accord to earth
growth.

--
Florian
"Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme
une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer

On Apr 4, 12:08 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:

Not even 1% because eclogitization is only partial. Even 1% is
ridiculous considering that the mantle is heterogenous.

Heterogenous isotopically, not so much in major element chemistry.

There's a difference.

By the way Stuart, is there any example of well characterized convection
in plastic solids?


Define "plastic". Give me a rheology.

In mantle convection that is huge. Another boost occurs at the 410km
discontinuity when olivine -> spinel-olivine. That is an exothermic phase
transition, which acts to enhance subductiom.

It is the opposite. Models show that the olivine -> spinel transition is
apparently not favorable to subduction. It slows it down:


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-3VGC7YV-

That is in the case of metastability, in which the transition does not
occur at the normal P &T and is delayed to higher Pressure.

Yes it might mitigate the effect, but there obervations where the 410k
discontinuity is displaced upwards.

We already discussed the quote and I told you it looked incorrect.

So? Did I twist the quote or not?

Jeez, did you already forget the point? The point was that for a
material, cooler mean denser. But it does not mean at all that the slab
being cooler than surrounding material, would also be denser than
surrounding material.

Only is its made out of substainially different stuff.

If a slab has a density of 3.0 and his temperature is about 700 K, it
won't be denser than peridotite that has a density about 3.3 at 1200 K.
Get it?

Where do you get a slab density of 3.0?

In slabs? It might be temperature, it might be composition, it might be
phase, It might be a mix, how would you know? That's all the issue.

Its temperature. You're again trying to muddy the waters.

Your invincible ignorance is on par with that of flat earthers.

On Apr 5, 12:50 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:



On Apr 4, 10:52 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net

(Florian) wrote:
don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:

Define "plastic". Give me a rheology.

...and stuart will give you another number.

A french geologist told me a joke recently.
I really love it. I try a translation:

What's 2 times 2?
A mathematician answers right away: 4!
A geologist, hesitates a bit, but finally answers: that must be 4.
Then a geophysicist: How much do you want?

Feel free to improve the translation :-)

A geophysicist walks into a McDonalds and orders a whopper.

Indeed !,a geophysicist would only ask for something that is not on
the menu - try Burger King.

Maybe. Maybe not. I agree that how subduction gets going is an
interesting problem.

On Apr 3, 12:53 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:

So your saying the evidence for an expanding earth is as strong
as the evidence that the Earth is round?

Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Apr 4, 12:08 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Not even 1% because eclogitization is only partial. Even 1% is
ridiculous considering that the mantle is heterogenous.

Heterogenous isotopically, not so much in major element chemistry.

There's a difference.

Are you so sure? Here's Anderson again:

http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/AndersonPEPI2005.pdf

The mantle is swallowing stuff that likely make it very heterogenous,
hence the marble cake model proposed by Allègre.

By the way Stuart, is there any example of well characterized convection
in plastic solids?

Define "plastic". Give me a rheology.

"Plastic solid: A material that deforms continuously and permanently
when submitted to a shearing stress in excess of its yield value."

So give me any example of plastic solids that were oberved to convect.

On Apr 5, 2:08 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Apr 5, 12:50 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:

On Apr 4, 10:52 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net

(Florian) wrote:
don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:

Define "plastic". Give me a rheology.

...and stuart will give you another number.

A french geologist told me a joke recently.
I really love it. I try a translation:

What's 2 times 2?
A mathematician answers right away: 4!
A geologist, hesitates a bit, but finally answers: that must be 4.
Then a geophysicist: How much do you want?

Feel free to improve the translation :-)

A geophysicist walks into a McDonalds and orders a whopper.

Indeed !,a geophysicist would only ask for something that is not on
the menu - try Burger King.

LOL.

I hardly eat fast food anymore.

Stuart- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heterogenous isotopically, not so much in major element chemistry.

There's a difference.

Are you so sure? Here's Anderson again:

http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/AndersonPEPI2005.pdf

The mantle is swallowing stuff that likely make it very heterogenous,
hence the marble cake model proposed by Allègre.

The models proposed by Allegre are based on REE isotopic variations,
not major element chemisty.

"Plastic solid: A material that deforms continuously and permanently
when submitted to a shearing stress in excess of its yield value."

So give me any example of plastic solids that were oberved to convect.

Google "Bingham Plastic" and "thermal convection"

The only good thing about your appearance here Stuart is
that you will be seen by others in the future as the only one prepared
to put yourself forward as the the frontman, the fall guy, (the
*GEORGE*) - the *JESUS CHRIST* even, of Plate Tectonics (Jesus
Christ!) , who will go down in the archives of Google as the one
prepared to sacrifice all for his dough-headed weeetabix eaters,

don findlay <don@tower.net.au> wrote:

The only good thing about your appearance here Stuart is
that you will be seen by others in the future as the only one prepared
to put yourself forward as the the frontman, the fall guy, (the
*GEORGE*) - the *JESUS CHRIST* even, of Plate Tectonics (Jesus
Christ!) , who will go down in the archives of Google as the one
prepared to sacrifice all for his dough-headed weeetabix eaters,

Indeed, Stuart exposes himself in this newsgroup. I already warned him
that the discussions are archived. But I don't think it would ruin his
carreer. His excuse is "Everybody was wrong". The worse that can happen
to him is that he will be laugh at for a long time.

you folks pooh pooh anyone that knows any thing. and stuart's

Florian wrote:
don findlay <don@tower.net.au> wrote:

The only good thing about your appearance here Stuart is
that you will be seen by others in the future as the only one prepared
to put yourself forward as the the frontman, the fall guy, (the
*GEORGE*) - the *JESUS CHRIST* even, of Plate Tectonics (Jesus
Christ!) , who will go down in the archives of Google as the one
prepared to sacrifice all for his dough-headed weeetabix eaters,

Indeed, Stuart exposes himself in this newsgroup. I already warned him
that the discussions are archived. But I don't think it would ruin his
carreer. His excuse is "Everybody was wrong". The worse that can happen
to him is that he will be laugh at for a long time.

you folks pooh pooh anyone that knows any thing. and stuart's
mathematics seems to go over the EE head. I know that any disprove or
legitimate science is clearly ignored.

I know about celestial mechanics and the simple stuff I post
is never really discussed except to snipe and call names.


1. the mathematics predicts that IF and ONLY IF the mass
increases will the moon collide with the earth.

2. the null test is no threatening approaches by the moon.

and Yes I can post the mathematics. but why bother when it serves no
useful puprose. Ignored messages text is just noise.
josephus

1. the mathematics predicts that IF and ONLY IF the mass
increases will the moon collide with the earth.

2. the null test is no threatening approaches by the moon.

and Yes I can post the mathematics.

Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Heterogenous isotopically, not so much in major element chemistry.

There's a difference.

Are you so sure? Here's Anderson again:

http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/AndersonPEPI2005.pdf

The mantle is swallowing stuff that likely make it very heterogenous,
hence the marble cake model proposed by Allègre.

The models proposed by Allegre are based on REE isotopic variations,
not major element chemisty.

That's rigth. The model proposed by Allègre is limited to isotopic
heterogeneity:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v323/n6084/abs/323123a0.html

But read Anderson, cited above, he arguments for more important
heterogeneities, including chemical compounds (compounds, not necessarly
elements ok?)

"Plastic solid: A material that deforms continuously and permanently
when submitted to a shearing stress in excess of its yield value."

So give me any example of plastic solids that were oberved to convect.

Google "Bingham Plastic" and "thermal convection"

"Bingham Plastic" is a model. I want real stuff.

Could you please give me an example of "Bingham Plastic" like material
that was observed to convect (thermal convection of course).

don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
The only good thing about your appearance here Stuart is
that you will be seen by others in the future as the only one prepared
to put yourself forward as the the frontman, the fall guy, (the
*GEORGE*) - the *JESUS CHRIST* even, of Plate Tectonics (Jesus
Christ!) , who will go down in the archives of Google as the one
prepared to sacrifice all for his dough-headed weeetabix eaters,

Indeed, Stuart exposes himself in this newsgroup. I already warned him
that the discussions are archived. But I don't think it would ruin his
carreer. His excuse is "Everybody was wrong". The worse that can happen
to him is that he will be laugh at for a long time.