oriel36 wrote:
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.

Sorry Oriel, .. the curvature of the arcs is the wrong way





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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

He's a kook.

He's a kook.

Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
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.

Some of what?

On Apr 7, 6:33 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
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.

Sorry Oriel, .. the curvature of the arcs is the wrong way





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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You asked how subduction gets going and relative to the thickness of
the crust and the Earth's diameter,the ice sheet in relation to the
bowling ball would be much smaller that 1 mm,at least if the crust
thickness is relaively small at the subduction zones -

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/structure/crust/index.php

Considering the geodynamics which create a global 40km difference
between polar and equatorial diameters,I have little difficulty using
the same mechanism to shunt the plates around as a major factor in the
evolution of surface features.

Of course an analogy can only get you so
far and I am under no pretenses as to what must be a very complex
network of influences going on but they do not include thermally
driven convection cells and they certainly have nothing to do with ee.

Plate tectonics remains a remarkable concept but it appears that this
generation cannot handle it or rather does not have the ability to act
on the clues it leaves for geodynamics and visa versa.I worked on it
on and off for 4 years and it gets better with refinements .not some
much throwing the kitchen sink at it to arrive at a conclusion but
just allowing geodynamics to dictate its own outlines as a working
principle.

You should be happy, this year the geostationary guys ran for cover
and decided that ee was a worthy concept to oppose after all

and no
doubt the summer will pass with abstracts flying right,left and center
to promote a geostationary notion over a balooning Earth one.In the
end,it all comes down to the internal mechanism which sets the
criteria for composition and viscosity of the planet's interior and
from there to the dynamics of crustal motion,I don't have to do
anything considering more considering it is a meta-argument which
links planetary shape and crustal motion via a common rotational
mechanism.Until somebody wakes up.I really have to do nothing but wait
and enjoy the summer.

On Apr 7, 3:24 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
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.

Some of what?

Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property
of a Bingham plastic.

Lets start there.

I'm tired having to do your homework for you.

Stuart

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

Stuart wrote:

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

Yes.

will go down in the archives of Google

He's a kook.

Idiot.

Were you not taught to respect PhDs at your University?

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...

Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property
of a Bingham plastic.

Lets start there.

I'm tired having to do your homework for you.

josephus <dogbird@earthlink.net> wrote:

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

Facts is that the moon is receeding despite the earth is growing. Try to
find the physics to explain it instead of wasting your time in denying.

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

and Yes I can post the mathematics.

Why am I not impressed... ah yeah, I know. "mathematics" is not a kind
of magic. It is just a tool. Only cranks are impressed by maths.

the problem with the earth expanding is the lack of mass increase.
hence the earth cannot be expanding.

the celestial theorums apply
even to an expanding earth. differential equations are common place.
the simplification is to not obfuscate the issue.

as a note anyone interested in science will look at the mathematics.
florian really is not interested in science

Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property
of a Bingham plastic.

You seem confused. Bingham plastic do not behave like fluids in absence
of stress. By definition, they are not fluids.

Why do I have the bad impression that you know zero example of thermal
convection in a Bingham plastic like material? Tss tss...

Lets start there.

I'm tired having to do your homework for you.

Lazy guy.
You claim there is thermal convection in Bingham plastic, You show me a
real life example.

It is how science work, at least in my field which is not fucked up like
geophysics.