On Apr 7, 9:07 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property
of a Bingham plastic.

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

There are many materials for which the definitions are blurred.

That is the point of the Bingham rheology, and that is why
it is applied to a variety of materials.

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


I'm not responsible for the impressions held by idiots.

Lets start there.

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

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

Fine.

Take a can of ketchup.

Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.

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


You don't have a field.

And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature
regarding
both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline
rocks

while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous
measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.

On Apr 7, 9:07 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property
of a Bingham plastic.

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

There are many materials for which the definitions are blurred.

That is the point of the Bingham rheology, and that is why
it is applied to a variety of materials.

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


I'm not responsible for the impressions held by idiots.

Lets start there.

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

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

Fine.

Take a can of ketchup.

Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.


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


You don't have a field.

And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature
regarding
both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline
rocks
while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous
measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.

Stuart

Stuart wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:07 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property
of a Bingham plastic.

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

There are many materials for which the definitions are blurred.

Like solid rock? ...(being a fluid on geological time scales). Maybe
this could be extended to mean that on astronomical time scales it
behaves like a gas. What do you think Stuart?

That is the point of the Bingham rheology, and that is why
it is applied to a variety of materials.

I'm with Florian on this one. Where do we find this stuff?

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

I'm not responsible for the impressions held by idiots.

Lets start there.

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

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

Fine.

Take a can of ketchup.

(I'm with Stuart here - When it's been sitting around for a while it
does behave like solid rock.. I think this must be what Stuart
means...)



Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.

Mmm. And then what? Is this supposed to be your analogy for thermal
convection Stuart?http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/corpuscles.html
(...the bit where that fellow Anderson you were talking about says:-
"Mantle convection is quite different from the usual pot-on-a-stove
metaphor. "

(As if we didn't know.) Why do you persist with your nonsense
Stuart. If you're going to be the front-man, behave like one. Tell
us in terms gravitas how gravity exerts a force at a distance, for
example.

stellar medium? forcing the aether downwards into large convection
currents? Or does the Aether force the planets 'upwards' holding them
at a distance? Is the Aether layered? Stuff like that would be
interesting at least. But blood in a bottle, .. (Where's my wooden
stake and my silver hammer...)

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

You don't have a field.

(Come on Stuart, ..you can do better.) (Possibly.)



And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature
regarding
both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline
rocks

The 'Physics' bit is not serving the 'geo' bit very well though, is
it? ...when it can disregard something as fundamental as the global
scale inscription of geological structure symmetrical with the Earth's
spin over geological time.

And insists a flat-bottomed pan is the
way to go instead of a round Earth. Have the spatial/ volumetric
conundrums of convection in a round Earth never occurred to you?

Can we have an advance on your admission that you don't have a clue
about how subduction gets going?

y9ou have to shake the Earth and turn the heat up? What's your
'convectional rationale' for your tomato ketchup in a pan model?

while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous
measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.

An observation that the earth is round round doesn't need a theory.

It's an observable fact. (Unless you keep your eyes below the horizon
or your head in the sand.)

Fine.

Take a can of ketchup.

Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.

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


You don't have a field.

And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature
regarding
both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline
rocks

while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous
measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.

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

Take a can of ketchup.

Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.

Are you kidding? ketchup is NOT a Bingham plastic! It is not solid
neither under stress.

"ketchup science" is really all you can do?

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

You don't have a field.

I do. You would know it you knew how to use google scholar. But I don't
expect to much from you, nor from Georgie or the like. Vous êtes des
mauvais (I let you find the translation that should be easy for a smart
ass).

And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature
regarding
both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline
rocks

Whatever. The studies of creep are never done under the condition of
THERMAL CONVECTION.

A stress is sufficient for creep, no need for heat transfer,

and this is
exactly what happens during planetary growth.

The excess of material
produced "somewhere"

in the planet is pushing material toward the
surface (diapirism, plume) and it turns into volcanism, uplift and

nappes.

while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous
measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.

More ducking:

Plate tectonics is a bad model that can't explain patterns of ocean
floor like this one:

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

the growth is observed

On Apr 8, 2:47 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:07 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property
of a Bingham plastic.

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

There are many materials for which the definitions are blurred.

Like solid rock? ...(being a fluid on geological time scales). Maybe
this could be extended to mean that on astronomical time scales it
behaves like a gas. What do you think Stuart?

You know better than this.

You talk about Boudins.

Ever wonder how the space fills in between Boudins?

That is the point of the Bingham rheology, and that is why
it is applied to a variety of materials.

I'm with Florian on this one. Where do we find this stuff?

The Bingham rheology was used to describe muli-component fluids
which would not suffer permanent deformation until a yield criterion
was reached after which viscous flow would ensue.

There are a number of materials that have this property.

Cookie dough. Poke it gently it bounces back.

Put it under a rolling pin, watch it flow.

Like I said. The best experiments are the ones you can eat.

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

I'm not responsible for the impressions held by idiots.

Lets start there.

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

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

Fine.

Take a can of ketchup.

(I'm with Stuart here - When it's been sitting around for a while it
does behave like solid rock.. I think this must be what Stuart
means...)



Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.

Mmm. And then what? Is this supposed to be your analogy for thermal
convection Stuart?http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/corpuscles.html
(...the bit where that fellow Anderson you were talking about says:-
"Mantle convection is quite different from the usual pot-on-a-stove
metaphor. "

The issue here is convection in general. Among other things, ketchup
or cookie dough, don't have radiogenic heating, pressure induced
phase changes.. are not self-gravitating etc.

(As if we didn't know.) Why do you persist with your nonsense
Stuart. If you're going to be the front-man, behave like one. Tell
us in terms gravitas how gravity exerts a force at a distance, for
example.

?

Where did that come from?

Do Planets float (with negative buoyancy of course) in the
stellar medium? forcing the aether downwards into large convection
currents? Or does the Aether force the planets 'upwards' holding them
at a distance? Is the Aether layered? Stuff like that would be
interesting at least. But blood in a bottle, .. (Where's my wooden
stake and my silver hammer...)

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

You don't have a field.

(Come on Stuart, ..you can do better.) (Possibly.)



And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature
regarding
both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline
rocks

The 'Physics' bit is not serving the 'geo' bit very well though, is
it? ...when it can disregard something as fundamental as the global
scale inscription of geological structure symmetrical with the Earth's
spin over geological time.

Didn't we point out how in many places your model predicts the wrong
sense of spin?

And insists a flat-bottomed pan is the
way to go instead of a round Earth. Have the spatial/ volumetric
conundrums of convection in a round Earth never occurred to you?

There aren't any.

Can we have an advance on your admission that you don't have a clue
about how subduction gets going?

Silly. I still think its buoyancy and I think it will most often
happen where there is pronounced lateral heterogeneity like
at continental margins.

What is interesting is how the large viscosity
of the lithosphere traps that buoyancy.

Does that help?

Surely you don't mean that somehow
y9ou have to shake the Earth and turn the heat up? What's your
'convectional rationale' for your tomato ketchup in a pan model?

Where in this do you need to shake the ketchup?

Yeild stress is yeild stress. One way of achieving the yeild
stress is to pound the bottle furiously. Is that the only way?


while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous
measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.

An observation that the earth is round round doesn't need a theory.

An observation that the Earth is round has nothing to do with EE.

It's an observable fact. (Unless you keep your eyes below the horizon
or your head in the sand.)

Then you should have no trouble presenting unambiguous
measurements showing the Earth is growing.

snip

Stuart

Try reading the PT literature sometime.

then why doesn't it just pour out of the ketchup bottle? (Heinz that
is)

There are plenty of other examples. Toothpaste

I do. You would know it you knew how to use google scholar. But I don't
expect to much from you, nor from Georgie or the like. Vous êtes des
mauvais (I let you find the translation that should be easy for a smart
ass).

You're no science scholar period.

And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature
regarding
both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline
rocks

Whatever. The studies of creep are never done under the condition of
THERMAL CONVECTION.

Irrelevant.

A stress is sufficient for creep, no need for heat transfer,

I never claimed anything else silly goose

However, thermal buoyancy can generate the necessary stress.
As you understand above, that is all that is necessary.

and this is
exactly what happens during planetary growth.


there has been no such thing as planetary growth since 4.5 billion
years ago.

If so, you'll need to explain why the Earth's complement Pb, U
ratios falls on the meteorite isochron.

The excess of material
produced "somewhere"

That would be fantasy land.

in the planet is pushing material toward the
surface (diapirism, plume) and it turns into volcanism, uplift and

*turns it into* ? Why should material be pushed to the surface in
the form of plumes? Why not a gentle swelling of the planet?

More ducking:

Plate tectonics is a bad model that can't explain patterns of ocean
floor like this one:

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

Try reading the PT literature sometime.

Stuart wrote:
On Apr 8, 2:47 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:07 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property
of a Bingham plastic.

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

There are many materials for which the definitions are blurred.

Like solid rock? ...(being a fluid on geological time scales). Maybe
this could be extended to mean that on astronomical time scales it
behaves like a gas. What do you think Stuart?

You know better than this.

You talk about Boudins.

Ever wonder how the space fills in between Boudins?

Not any more. Crustal scale boudinage for the global tectonics we
see fits the bill exactly.. Google it up
"Crustal deformation" boudinage



That is the point of the Bingham rheology, and that is why
it is applied to a variety of materials.

I'm with Florian on this one. Where do we find this stuff?

The Bingham rheology was used to describe muli-component fluids
which would not suffer permanent deformation until a yield criterion
was reached after which viscous flow would ensue.

Is that right. Well, there's a big difference between something
behaving LIKE a fluid and it BEING one. Solid rock, despite it
deforming into more contortions than an Indian/ Egyptial/ Balinese
Belly Dancer, is not a fluid. Crystal gliding and accompanying
recrystallisation and movement on faults/ microfaults (and the
language to conveniently describe it) is NOT *fluid* flow. You're
only fooling yourself if you think you can apply the same equations of
state. What's more, all of that stuff, all those contortions that
makes you think lovingly of belly dancing, is *stress* induced, more
than it is temperature induced.

Check your pulse next time and see.

There are a number of materials that have this property.

Cookie dough. Poke it gently it bounces back.

Put it under a rolling pin, watch it flow.

Like I said. The best experiments are the ones you can eat.

What about Flaky Pastry? There was a bloke on this newsgroup (not
mentioning any names) who said you can take analogies too far. Wonder
who that was...

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

I'm not responsible for the impressions held by idiots.

Lets start there.

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

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

Fine.

Take a can of ketchup.

(I'm with Stuart here - When it's been sitting around for a while it
does behave like solid rock.. I think this must be what Stuart
means...)

Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.

Mmm. And then what? Is this supposed to be your analogy for thermal
convection Stuart?http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/corpuscles.html
(...the bit where that fellow Anderson you were talking about says:-
"Mantle convection is quite different from the usual pot-on-a-stove
metaphor. "

The issue here is convection in general. Among other things, ketchup
or cookie dough, don't have radiogenic heating, pressure induced
phase changes.. are not self-gravitating etc.

Ductile flow in rocks only has a loose analogy with a fluid. And so
does your 'floatation' of the crust only have limited application.
If dense bits of crust 'sank' through less dense (hotter), then the
ocean floors would sink Holus Bolus, ...just right where they are..
There would be geysers of lava everywhere. And the Russian and Indian
and other traps too would have sank out of sight long ago. Forget
cookie dough.



(As if we didn't know.) Why do you persist with your nonsense
Stuart. If you're going to be the front-man, behave like one. Tell
us in terms gravitas how gravity exerts a force at a distance, for
example.

?

Where did that come from?

Gravity. It's all got something to do with gravity. But not as
simple flotation. Or is it?



Do Planets float (with negative buoyancy of course) in the
stellar medium? forcing the aether downwards into large convection
currents? Or does the Aether force the planets 'upwards' holding them
at a distance? Is the Aether layered? Stuff like that would be
interesting at least. But blood in a bottle, .. (Where's my wooden
stake and my silver hammer...)

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

You don't have a field.

(Come on Stuart, ..you can do better.) (Possibly.)

And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature
regarding
both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline
rocks

The 'Physics' bit is not serving the 'geo' bit very well though, is
it? ...when it can disregard something as fundamental as the global
scale inscription of geological structure symmetrical with the Earth's
spin over geological time.

Didn't we point out how in many places your model predicts the wrong
sense of spin?

(Where did that come from?) No you most certainly did not. You(s)
must have forgotten.

And insists a flat-bottomed pan is the
way to go instead of a round Earth. Have the spatial/ volumetric
conundrums of convection in a round Earth never occurred to you?

There aren't any.

Oh yes there are.
"Mantle convection is quite different from the usual pot-on-a-stove
metaphor."http://www.mantleplumes.org/Convection.html
...So the hot, flowing fluid just goes along the top of the mantle (as
ocean floor) (which is why there are no earthquakes because it's nice
and ductile - because it's flowing) till it meets a continent, when it
gets cold enough to be pushed down and sink - then it goes down into
the hot mantle (where there are lots of earthquakes - because it's a
cold slab (by now) grinding its way down...)

Can we have an advance on your admission that you don't have a clue
about how subduction gets going?

Silly. I still think its buoyancy and I think it will most often
happen where there is pronounced lateral heterogeneity like
at continental margins.

So what do you have to say to the popular myth that the (lighter)
continental lithosphere "forces" the (denser) oceanic lithosphere
down?http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/fails.html



What is interesting is how the large viscosity
of the lithosphere traps that buoyancy.

Does that help?

No. Not until you answer the bit about the mantle slab getting
"forced down"

Surely you don't mean that somehow
y9ou have to shake the Earth and turn the heat up? What's your
'convectional rationale' for your tomato ketchup in a pan model?

Where in this do you need to shake the ketchup?

What? Do you take yours into the kitchen and heat it up rather than
just bang the bottom of the bottle?

trendy little rubber number you have on whilst freeing the spirit of
convecting ketchup. Why don't you just grunt and sock it
one, ..like me..?

Yeild stress is yeild stress. One way of achieving the yeild
stress is to pound the bottle furiously. Is that the only way?

while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous
measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.

An observation that the earth is round round doesn't need a theory.

An observation that the Earth is round has nothing to do with EE.

Oh yes it most certainly does. We couldn't possibly have plates or
flat-bottomed pans getting bigger.

all about.



It's an observable fact. (Unless you keep your eyes below the horizon
or your head in the sand.)

Then you should have no trouble presenting unambiguous
measurements showing the Earth is growing.

Doubled in size since the Mesozoic.

On Apr 9, 12:40 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Fine.

Take a can of ketchup.

Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.

Are you kidding? ketchup is NOT a Bingham plastic! It is not solid
neither under stress.

then why doesn't it just pour out of the ketchup bottle? (Heinz that
is)

There are plenty of other examples. Toothpaste

Try one.

Consult the food science/technology literature.



"ketchup science" is really all you can do?

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

You don't have a field.

I do. You would know it you knew how to use google scholar. But I don't
expect to much from you, nor from Georgie or the like. Vous êtes des
mauvais (I let you find the translation that should be easy for a smart
ass).


You're no science scholar period.

Is that right. Well, there's a big difference between something
behaving LIKE a fluid and it BEING one. Solid rock, despite it
deforming into more contortions than an Indian/ Egyptial/ Balinese
Belly Dancer, is not a fluid. Crystal gliding and accompanying
recrystallisation and movement on faults/ microfaults (and the
language to conveniently describe it) is NOT *fluid* flow. You're
only fooling yourself if you think you can apply the same equations of
state. What's more, all of that stuff, all those contortions that
makes you think lovingly of belly dancing, is *stress* induced, more
than it is temperature induced.

In this case of continental rocks, I would tend to agree.

Simple point is, under stress rock will flow, yes?



No. Not until you answer the bit about the mantle slab getting
"forced down"

You mean pulled down?

Doubled in size since the Mesozoic.

Opinion masquerading as fact.

Fine.

Take a can of ketchup.

Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.

Try reading the PT literature sometime.

Stuart