On Apr 5, 10:19 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
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.


It will be along time before you ever earn that right, if ever.


Exposing your nonsense for what it is, can't hurt anyone's
career except yours. Assuming you actually have one.

Stuart

Stuart <bigdakine@aol.com> wrote:

It will be along time before you ever earn that right, if ever.

Too much certitude. It's gonna hit you very very hard.

BTW, I have a little exercise for you.

Like puzzles? Know how to use isochrons and transform faults to retrofit
margins? Let's play (2.9 Mo):

http://nachon.free.fr/isochrons/antarctic.pdf

What a surprise! We can retrofit the margins of Lord Howe, Australia,
India, Africa, South-america, all around antarctica!
Hey wait a minute, it means that the surface of the globe did expand...
Looks like you're in deep trouble...

--
Florian
"Toute v�rit� passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculis�e;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'�tre accept�e comme
une totale �vidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer

The Bingham plastic rheology was developed by Bingham ( who else?) to
explain the
behavior of certain fluids like slurries, fluids which under low
stresses will behave rigidly
then loose strength under high stress and suffer permanent continuous
deformation.

I suggest you do more digging.

creep mechanism in solids are theoretically and experimentally
justified, take a gander at Poirier's "Creep of crystals".

It will be along time before you ever earn that right, if ever.

Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
The Bingham plastic rheology was developed by Bingham ( who else?) to
explain the
behavior of certain fluids like slurries, fluids which under low
stresses will behave rigidly
then loose strength under high stress and suffer permanent continuous
deformation.

I suggest you do more digging.

Oh please, I know what it is.
I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.

On Apr 6, 12:56 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net

(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
The Bingham plastic rheology was developed by Bingham ( who else?) to
explain the
behavior of certain fluids like slurries, fluids which under low
stresses will behave rigidly
then loose strength under high stress and suffer permanent continuous
deformation.

I suggest you do more digging.

Oh please, I know what it is.
I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.

Well if you know what it is...

Then put some in a pot. Put it on the stove, heat, observe.

What is it you're expecting exactly?

snip

Stuart

On Apr 7, 6:51 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:







On Apr 6, 12:56 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net

(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
The Bingham plastic rheology was developed by Bingham ( who else?) to
explain the
behavior of certain fluids like slurries, fluids which under low
stresses will behave rigidly
then loose strength under high stress and suffer permanent continuous
deformation.

I suggest you do more digging.

Oh please, I know what it is.
I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.

Well if you know what it is...

Then put some in a pot. Put it on the stove, heat, observe.

What is it you're expecting exactly?

snip

Stuart

No offence but how do you correlate a flat bottomed pot on a stove
with the rotating and spherical Earth .

What you and your colleagues are doing is weakening the plate tectonic
concept even though there are only scattered clues as to the forces
and effects,compositions and viscosity involved.Drawing conclusions
based entirely on surface correlations can only get you so far and
then turn counter-productive if you settle on a conclusion such as a
'convection cell' mechanism and that it turn allows an irritating
situation to emerge where idiotice notions such as the ee conclusion
finds a foothold.

On Apr 6, 9:00 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Apr 7, 6:51 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:

On Apr 6, 12:56 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net

(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
The Bingham plastic rheology was developed by Bingham ( who else?) to
explain the
behavior of certain fluids like slurries, fluids which under low
stresses will behave rigidly
then loose strength under high stress and suffer permanent continuous
deformation.

I suggest you do more digging.

Oh please, I know what it is.
I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.

Well if you know what it is...

Then put some in a pot. Put it on the stove, heat, observe.

What is it you're expecting exactly?

snip

Stuart

No offence but how do you correlate a flat bottomed pot on a stove
with the rotating and spherical Earth .

I don't. He asked me for an example of a plastic rheology convecting.

I hope he finds something edible. I've always said the best
experiments are the
ones you can eat.



What you and your colleagues are doing is weakening the plate tectonic
concept even though there are only scattered clues as to the forces
and effects,compositions and viscosity involved.Drawing conclusions
based entirely on surface correlations can only get you so far and
then turn counter-productive if you settle on a conclusion such as a
'convection cell' mechanism and that it turn allows an irritating
situation to emerge where idiotice notions such as the ee conclusion
finds a foothold.

Wow. Even Oriel figures EE is idiotic.

snip

Stuart- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article <4461b784-a2e8-400d-8f91-5258841d0...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Stuart wrote:
Exposing your nonsense for what it is, can't hurt anyone's
career except yours. Assuming you actually have one.

       He's a kook. That's only rarely been a problem for a career
flipping burgers. (Some might argue that decades of burger-flipping is
a necessary prerequisite for the higher levels of kookery ; others
would deny the need for such high-status employment.)
--
Aidan Karley, FGS,
Aberdeen, Scotland

Stuart wrote:

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

Really? Now this is news. What problem do you see, Stuart? Is it
convection drives subduction, ..or subduction drives convection?

There's a nice simple framework for your answer. Which one would you
like to begin with? (..since both of them seem to figure in Plate
Tectonics as equally correct).

don findlay wrote:
Stuart wrote:

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

Really?  Now this is news.   What problem do you see, Stuart?   Is it
convection drives subduction, ..or subduction drives convection?

There's a nice simple framework for your answer.  Which one would you
like to begin with? (..since both of them seem to figure in Plate
Tectonics as equally correct).

What? No answer, Stuart?

Hah!  Not only have you no answer to how subduction beginshttp://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/9a8d3634bd3a8471
you do not understand the priorities of the parameters controlling the
process you profess to support, you are drunk on the foetid fugh that
rises (by convection) from the overheated malodourous swamp of Plate
Tectonics.

Tell you what, Stu, .. ..  Since you began all this by being the
arrogant bully you are, and taking a gratuitous swipe at my poor one-
legged butt when I asked a simple question, ...and since you are
seriously continuing to support this stupid analogy of hot air rising
as the reason for keeping the whole schemozzle of Plate Tectonics on
the road even though you or anyone else cannot tell how it begins, nor
can offer any reason for the many anomalies, conundrums and outright
contradictions that follow from attributing convection as a driver for
a process you know nothing about (how it begins),  I'll offer you a
page on my website and you can fill it out (/in) (as you prefer)as we
go along and things occur to you.

I'll provide a hand-hold and help you.  Like Florian says there's
surely plenty in the archives we can use .  Now I can't say fairer
than that as an aid to fair-handedness can I?   Aidan there's even
complaining that you're not answering my posts...

Come on Stuart, subduction is the key to your whole argument for Plate
Tectonics and you freely admit you have no answer to how it can
begin.    What's going on?  If you can't answer that one you plainly
need some help.

Exposing your nonsense for what it is, can't hurt anyone's
career except yours. Assuming you actually have one.

He's a kook. That's only rarely been a problem for a career

On Apr 7, 2:46�pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Stuart wrote:

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

Really? �Now this is news. � What problem do you see, Stuart? � Is it
convection drives subduction, ..or subduction drives convection?

There's a nice simple framework for your answer. �Which one would you
like to begin with? (..since both of them seem to figure in Plate
Tectonics as equally correct).

What? No answer, Stuart?

Hah! �Not only have you no answer to how subduction beginshttp://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/9a8d3634bd3a8471
you do not understand the priorities of the parameters controlling the
process you profess to support, you are drunk on the foetid fugh that
rises (by convection) from the overheated malodourous swamp of Plate
Tectonics.

Tell you what, Stu, .. .. �Since you began all this by being the
arrogant bully you are, and taking a gratuitous swipe at my poor one-
legged butt when I asked a simple question, ...and since you are
seriously continuing to support this stupid analogy of hot air rising
as the reason for keeping the whole schemozzle of Plate Tectonics on
the road even though you or anyone else cannot tell how it begins, nor
can offer any reason for the many anomalies, conundrums and outright
contradictions that follow from attributing convection as a driver for
a process you know nothing about (how it begins), �I'll offer you a
page on my website and you can fill it out (/in) (as you prefer)as we
go along and things occur to you.

I'll provide a hand-hold and help you. �Like Florian says there's
surely plenty in the archives we can use . �Now I can't say fairer
than that as an aid to fair-handedness can I? � Aidan there's even
complaining that you're not answering my posts...

Come on Stuart, subduction is the key to your whole argument for Plate
Tectonics and you freely admit you have no answer to how it can
begin. � �What's going on? �If you can't answer that one you plainly
need some help.

The fractured crust profiles the less than spherical Earth.

Create an ice sheet across spherical objects like two bowling balls
of different sizes ( not dramatically different).Remove the ice sheet
from smaller ball and place it on the bigger ball and then moive it
across to meet the ice sheet of the bigger ball.Then you get a rough
and general idea of subduction,of course you need to recognise the
shape of the Earth and that it is rotating to produce such an analogy.

Geodynamics is an incredibly productive way to approach geological
evolution.

Have a nice summer and keep that Earth balooning at all costs,if
anything,it is keeping the geostationary guys from going too far with
their 'convection cell mechanism.

On Apr 7, 10:14�am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Apr 6, 9:00 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Apr 7, 6:51 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:

On Apr 6, 12:56 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net

(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
The Bingham plastic rheology was developed by Bingham ( who else?) to
explain the
behavior of certain fluids like slurries, fluids which under low
stresses will behave rigidly
then loose strength under high stress and suffer permanent continuous
deformation.

I suggest you do more digging.

Oh please, I know what it is.
I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.

Well if you know what it is...

Then put some in a pot. Put it on the stove, heat, observe.

What is it you're expecting exactly?

snip

Stuart

No offence but how do you correlate a flat bottomed pot on a stove
with the rotating and spherical Earth .

I don't. He asked me for an example of a plastic rheology convecting.

I hope he finds something edible. I've always said the best
experiments are the
ones you can eat.



What you and your colleagues are doing is weakening the plate tectonic
concept even though there are only scattered clues as to the forces
and effects,compositions and viscosity involved.Drawing conclusions
based entirely on surface correlations can only get you so far and
then turn counter-productive if you settle on a conclusion such as a
'convection cell' mechanism and that it turn allows an irritating
situation to emerge where idiotice notions such as the ee conclusion
finds a foothold.

Wow. Even Oriel figures EE is idiotic.

snip

Stuart- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In all honesty,the convection cell/ee debate is like watching flat
Earthers challenge geostationary Earthers,it does not matter which is
which,the result is as dismal as it is predictable.I have always said
that I am content to leave you to your own devices but the chances are
that only the most indifferent are not curious about geodynamical
influences on the motion of the Earth's crust.

I find 'convection cell' adherents worse than ee proponents insofar as
they inherit the genuine reasoning which lead to plate tectonics as a
prooductive working principle but are now undermining the concept with
details of the interior,structure,composition and viscosity based on
an ad hoc mechanism of thermally driven convection.

So 'even' Oriel gets that ee is idiotic is followed by geostationary
'convection cells'.I would say it will take a few months before the ee
guys will start hammering you about the internal mechanism and I do
not mind that you will come off looking worse,I do mind that you are
taking plate tectonics as a working principle with you.I leave you to
what I am sure for you is a titanic struggle with ee guys

but I do
look forward to genuine people actually picking up geodynamical
influences as they know exist in the matter of geology.

After a incredible 9 moinths with more detail added to geodynamical
influences and the addition of an overlooked orbital component I look
forwrd to a genuine break that is good for everyone.Don't cut each
other to pieces ,do you hear,and keep the discussions technical.