4
   

Is Earth expanding or shrinking?

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Feb, 2020 08:28 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
At the crust, there are obviously all the complexities of subduction and plates floating on top of the subducting material, but I assume that as you go deeper, the rising temperatures and pressures soften things up to where they can consolidate/compress as they fall deeper and deeper. Do you think there are reasons they wouldn't, such as the way the plates at the surface remain solid and resist collapsing into the subduction zone together with the subducting plate?
Not a bad beginning understanding actually. Why did you start off with all that crap where you denied how plates actually move?? My model of crust and shallow mantle plates being "carried " along like pizzas in a "tunnel oven" that employs a chain drive "conveyor belt" is pretty much the lab of a plte junction xcept theres not much subducting to the center of the erth. Its a fairly shallow mchanism (20 to 70 miles not 700)

The only thing that you need to understand is that the conveyor belt (convection cells) CARRY these tectonic plates by using inherent heat, density differences and zones of convection that make the surficial, less dense. crustal plates get carried along like theyre riding on trays. (These plates, have hardly any tensile strength or pressure rigidity) They are made of material that stratifies as it rises at the mid ocean ridges(lighter Sialic -[silica/aluminum] rocks like granite rise and form the crustal surfaces ] and these overlie( by density separation), the more dense layers of Simatic rock [Silica-magnesian rocks} and underneath all of these are the most dense magma cells of the upper mantle composed of ultra Mafic [magnesian-felsic (very little pure quartz silicates)) These are the green olivines, peridotites etc. Thee are like the dense blobs in a lava lamp and since the earth is an oblate sphere , the lava lamp blob can rise travel along a bit and then ink back into the deeper mantle as it cools and the KINETIC energy is converted from EXISTING heat to physical motion and then density(gravity) separation
Its a bloody pizza with a light cheese on top and denser tomato sauce underlain by a dense crust. The hot conveyor belt runs through the hot oven at a fairly constant pace.(So it is with the mechanics of plate convection).The only difference is that a pizza oven is driven by a motorized conveyor and continental drift is driven by the THERMODYNAMICS of crystallization (where density separation of minerals , like quartz rich silicates lie on top of rock which crystallizes out roughly at densities of of 2.64 to 2.67 and the MAFIC rock have a density of about 2.7+ to 3 and ULTRAMAFICS lay at the bottom like 3to 3.something )
So the big The difference is that the pizza HAS rigidity and can be slid around with a peel whereas a model of the erth crust (would it be a table sized planet , would have the earth composed of various kinds of whipped cream an moussees. We have no mechanical physics that allows us to really pull a slab of whip cream around with a rope nor could you push it so that it would stay together.(try pushing a carpet)
As the magma differentiates as it rises, it is carried toward its zone of either subduction or it becomes a "trailing edge " .But its all riding along run by the huge lava lamp that has its high density cellrise and differentiate, slide along the spheres upper mantle, cool, and then descend (While the "pizzas" just float off the conveyor and form CRATONS (land masses like "SHIELDS" and Sedimentary layers that become further enriched with seiment as the travel toward their caton "PIzza delivery spot-where they pile up or get pushed into the gutter ".

You made it ckear that you think I was only "poing words" an
1 you thought my nalogy of poizza was demeaning and
2 at the same time my selection of words was jut showmanship.


Analogy , Ive found, is on of the best ways to get students to "get it". It only requires one thing of the student. Admit that he doesnt know anything about the subject and just listen.
THEN, there are always follow up papers and literature that develops all these theories and evidences them quite well.


BTW We have many ways to verify all this but since you seem to just want to carry on an argumente from ignorance, we probably wouldnt ever exchange any ideas where you can learn something despite yourself.
On rereading the very posts where you and I left the road I noticed that you actually started getting snotty with me when I talked about the pizza "model" before. Maybe you were thinking I was being snotty myself. I WASNT. we use that analogy all the time because geology and geophysics actually allows it. THE WORLD IS OUR LAB and I can take a student or a whole bunch of em (We call these field trips) out to the lab and we can see this stuff ON THE HOOF. I can take you to any spot where the plates from the Grenville Period , form the edges of an entire country we call CAnada. I can show you the locations where we can actually TIME the events and movements of the Plates in the Snake River Plain or the Pine Moutain Thrust sheet in the Appalachians. We can see subduction and descending plates and mountain building along the flanks of Chimborazo or along the entire ridge of Sumatra/Java. If youd simply asked something like "How do you know this is so"? one item at a time, maybe I wouldnt have been so brusque and dismissive of you.
My wife brought it to my attention that"its the damned internet, you dont have to write his advisory evaluation "



farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 2 Feb, 2020 08:45 am
@farmerman,
PS, from the data GRACE has collected, the earth is neither expanding nor contracting at a level of accuracy of about +/- 0.01 cm. Since we live on an oblate spheroid (sorta pear shape) GRACIE has been recodring pressures at spcific deep ocean epthst where pressure sondes have been deployed. We also use these numbers to measure microgravity (after cleanup of all earthquake data ).
All this is available at JPL's website and the deep web (data repositories of many agencies).

You need to get keys of the models and equations used to read it all, but its all available
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Feb, 2020 03:41 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
At the crust, there are obviously all the complexities of subduction and plates floating on top of the subducting material, but I assume that as you go deeper, the rising temperatures and pressures soften things up to where they can consolidate/compress as they fall deeper and deeper. Do you think there are reasons they wouldn't, such as the way the plates at the surface remain solid and resist collapsing into the subduction zone together with the subducting plate?
Not a bad beginning understanding actually. Why did you start off with all that crap where you denied how plates actually move?? My model of crust and shallow mantle plates being "carried " along like pizzas in a "tunnel oven" that employs a chain drive "conveyor belt" is pretty much the lab of a plte junction xcept theres not much subducting to the center of the erth. Its a fairly shallow mchanism (20 to 70 miles not 700)

I was never in conflict with anything you said or anything that I've studied about plate tectonics, except the assumptions about where the energy comes from and how it works. You were the one who got worked up about me questioning and contemplating alternative models about how it works and how the energy moves.

I still stand by what I said about the relationship between kinetic and potential energy. There was never a reason to attack me for that. Your 'pizza slices on a conveyor belt' illustrates that the powered motion is occurring underneath the crustal plates and that they are sort of floating on top of it, but I think it's also important to think about the shedding of coastline into the ocean over time, which would dump bio-energetic sediments from the land into the ocean where it would get subducted. E.g. you have forests growing on the side of the mountains, which catch the clouds and deliver the water into the valley, which is fertile as a result. Over time, that stored energy must build up in the ocean and get dragged down via subduction. So the crust is not just floating on top of the mantle-conveyor, but it is also sedimenting over time and then breaking off at the edges to feed the energy it has caught and absorbed down into the mantle.

Quote:
The only thing that you need to understand is that the conveyor belt (convection cells) CARRY these tectonic plates by using inherent heat, density differences and zones of convection that make the surficial, less dense. crustal plates get carried along like theyre riding on trays. (These plates, have hardly any tensile strength or pressure rigidity) They are made of material that stratifies as it rises at the mid ocean ridges(lighter Sialic -[silica/aluminum] rocks like granite rise and form the crustal surfaces ] and these overlie( by density separation), the more dense layers of Simatic rock [Silica-magnesian rocks} and underneath all of these are the most dense magma cells of the upper mantle composed of ultra Mafic [magnesian-felsic (very little pure quartz silicates)) These are the green olivines, peridotites etc. Thee are like the dense blobs in a lava lamp and since the earth is an oblate sphere , the lava lamp blob can rise travel along a bit and then ink back into the deeper mantle as it cools and the KINETIC energy is converted from EXISTING heat to physical motion and then density(gravity) separation

Ok, thank you for beginning to talk in terms of convection powered by energy. I just happen to suspect that when the lighter material cools and sinks, it has also absorbed chemical energy from biosediments, which means the convection process that brings up hot material also makes room for heavier material to flow back down and bring with it energy captured at the surface.

Quote:
Its a bloody pizza with a light cheese on top and denser tomato sauce underlain by a dense crust. The hot conveyor belt runs through the hot oven at a fairly constant pace.(So it is with the mechanics of plate convection).The only difference is that a pizza oven is driven by a motorized conveyor and continental drift is driven by the THERMODYNAMICS of crystallization (where density separation of minerals , like quartz rich silicates lie on top of rock which crystallizes out roughly at densities of of 2.64 to 2.67 and the MAFIC rock have a density of about 2.7+ to 3 and ULTRAMAFICS lay at the bottom like 3to 3.something )

What do you mean when you say "the thermodynamics of crystallization?"

My understanding of the spreading ridges is that hot convection currents are rising up through the mantle and then forming strips at the spreading ridge whose magnetic polarity changes every so often because the Earth's magnetic field alignment flips.

I see the spreading ridge as a growing undersea mountain range, which erodes and thus gradually pushes material toward the subduction zone. In a sense, the subduction zone is like a river running through a valley that carries sediments further down to the ocean, only I don't know what the 'ocean' of the subducting mantle is, besides the mantle itself. You say the subducting material only makes it down 20 to 70 miles, but then where is the convection current that pushes up material at the spreading ridge originating (i.e. at what depth?)? If material is rising from some depth and other material is falling down, then I would expect there to be something like a vacuum process where the falling material must flow toward the low pressure being left behind by the rising material.

Quote:
So the big The difference is that the pizza HAS rigidity and can be slid around with a peel whereas a model of the erth crust (would it be a table sized planet , would have the earth composed of various kinds of whipped cream an moussees. We have no mechanical physics that allows us to really pull a slab of whip cream around with a rope nor could you push it so that it would stay together.(try pushing a carpet)

When you are cooking a soup, a crust can form from materials that are in the froth floating on the top. If the soup is simmering and not at a rolling boil, that froth island will more or less retain a certain shape and position, but it can float around a bit and change shape as the denser liquid soup flows around under it. I'm sure that's not a perfect analogy but I think it is a good example of an island floating on liquid that doesn't have real solidity or tensile strength as a solid thing, which nevertheless appears solid in comparison with the liquid underneath it.

Quote:

You made it ckear that you think I was only "poing words" an

What I said was that things you wrote before didn't contain explanation in addition to the slew of esoteric details, so it was not immediately clear whether you had some mechanical understanding of what you were talking about or whether you were just posting about bunch of details like pieces of a puzzle without really understanding how they fit together and thus being able to explain them.

Quote:
1 you thought my nalogy of poizza was demeaning and

Idk about 'demeaning,' but I didn't think that analogy contains any insight into the relationship between kinetic and potential energy. It is more an explanation of how the crustal plates are being pushed rather than moving by their momentum. I now understand why you were saying that, but I am still thinking critically about where the moving conveyor (mantle) is getting the energy to push those plates into each other and thus build mountains.

I know the mainstream theory is that all the energy comes from primordial heat and nuclear decay and that fossil(ized) energy/fuels don't contribute much if anything to the interior heat and tectonic power, but if you look at how deep they are fracking and digging to get to the tar sands, etc. then it seems clear that a lot of material has piled up on top of those ancient layers since the time they formed from biological sediments at the surface.

As those layers get buried ever deeper and other material is moving up to the spreading ridges at a convection current, there must be something like a low-pressure zone that allows mantle material to keep descending along with all the fossilized energy sediments it contains. In that case it is like a hopper where if you put an inch deep layer of fuel at the top of the hopper, by the time it sinks halfway down the hopper, it's going to be pushed together and thus doubled in thickness. In other words, the triangular/cone shape of the hopper compresses the material as it sinks down, so if that is happening to energy-rich material as it sinks down through the mantle, that could explain why the temperature gets hotter as you go deeper/closer to the core.

Quote:
Analogy , Ive found, is on of the best ways to get students to "get it". It only requires one thing of the student. Admit that he doesnt know anything about the subject and just listen.
THEN, there are always follow up papers and literature that develops all these theories and evidences them quite well.

I think, to the contrary, that if you want people to pay attention and understand something, you have to make them realize that they already understand something about the subject they're learning about. That's how analogy works. If someone can already grasp how a pizza slice would move along a conveyor belt, then you can use that analogy as a basis for explaining to them how plate tectonics works.

Quote:
BTW We have many ways to verify all this but since you seem to just want to carry on an argumente from ignorance, we probably wouldnt ever exchange any ideas where you can learn something despite yourself.

Yes, I would much prefer to discuss the methodology and theoretical models it is based on than to fight, as you often seem to prefer.

Quote:
On rereading the very posts where you and I left the road I noticed that you actually started getting snotty with me when I talked about the pizza "model" before. Maybe you were thinking I was being snotty myself. I WASNT. we use that analogy all the time because geology and geophysics actually allows it.

I don't remember, maybe. You poke and pick fights so I fight back. I don't like it, but I'm not going to let someone accuse me of being an idiot who doesn't understand anything I'm talking about; not because I'm trying to defend my own ego but because I'm trying to maintain an interesting and relevant scientific discussion based on real legitimate scientific concepts and if people just accuse me of completely misunderstanding all the science, then it undermines my whole interest in having fruitful scientific discussions online.

Quote:
THE WORLD IS OUR LAB and I can take a student or a whole bunch of em (We call these field trips) out to the lab and we can see this stuff ON THE HOOF. I can take you to any spot where the plates from the Grenville Period , form the edges of an entire country we call CAnada. I can show you the locations where we can actually TIME the events and movements of the Plates in the Snake River Plain or the Pine Moutain Thrust sheet in the Appalachians. We can see subduction and descending plates and mountain building along the flanks of Chimborazo or along the entire ridge of Sumatra/Java. If youd simply asked something like "How do you know this is so"? one item at a time, maybe I wouldnt have been so brusque and dismissive of you.
My wife brought it to my attention that"its the damned internet, you dont have to write his advisory evaluation "

Glad to hear your wife is a peace-maker. With the internet as bad as it is, just imagine what would it would be like without such peace-makers behind the scenes!

You are right that it is better to discuss things 'one item at a time' systematically instead of just yelling back and forth without clarifying things being shouted. Shouting matches are idiotic and a waste of time, even when the information being shouted is relevant to some meaningful context.

It sounds very interesting to travel and see all these kinds of things you are talking about that make the world a geological laboratory. As I've aged, I've found that there are documentary makers and photographers who get such good footage it can be better to watch it on a screen than seeing it for myself. I do like seeing mountains in person just to get a feeling for the immense scale of how much material there is and all the potential energy of elevation contained in them. I've never seen an avalanche/rock-slide/mudslide in person, but I always think of them as the example par excellence that demonstrates conversion of potential energy (of elevation/altitude) to kinetic energy (of motion and then friction/heat).

Still, and I think you hate to hear this, I still like to compare the energy it takes to push up mountains with the energy it would take to build the same mountain using bulldozers and dumptrucks, ovens to bake the rocks, etc. There is a huge amount of energy that goes into building a mountain range, and I think people fail to appreciate that all mountains are gradually being weathered and eroded into the valleys, oceans, and ultimately subduction zones.

If we leach out all the energy at the surface layers before the material can make it down deep into the mantle where it will help power the convection furnace there, the mantle will cool and mountain-forming and plate tectonics will eventually slow and/or grind to a halt. This may take hundreds of thousands of years, but we should realize that the Earth has been working for millions and billions of years in the past to amass the energy currently contained within it. I know you insist that the energy was mostly just there as primordial energy when the planet formed to begin with, and/or that the nuclear fuels within it are contributing most of the energy, but I just have a hard time believing that the sun isn't communicating fusion energy into the interior via surface processes that form, sediment, and subduct fossil(ized) energy/fuels.

It is just logical that life on Earth evolved as a chemical interface for connecting the sun as a power source with the interior of the planet. It would not make sense for life to evolve at the surface as nothing more than something superficial that doesn't connect with the longer term functioning of the planet as a whole mechanical energy system.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Feb, 2020 03:46 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

PS, from the data GRACE has collected, the earth is neither expanding nor contracting at a level of accuracy of about +/- 0.01 cm. Since we live on an oblate spheroid (sorta pear shape) GRACIE has been recodring pressures at spcific deep ocean epthst where pressure sondes have been deployed. We also use these numbers to measure microgravity (after cleanup of all earthquake data ).
All this is available at JPL's website and the deep web (data repositories of many agencies).

You need to get keys of the models and equations used to read it all, but its all available

Max. said something similar, implying that my concern is with the net quantitative diameter of the Earth changing or staying the same.

I know the net diameter of the Earth is stable.

My concern is with material sedimenting into layers and those layers gradually shrinking inward as the interior near the core is being pumped up via convection currents.

To be completely blunt, it's like the Earth is pooping out its outer core as convection mantle plumes and then the outer layers are sinking down with all the sediments they've accrued. By the time those sunken layers make it to the outer core, they've compressed/condensed and heated to the point of fueling the convection currents that send material back up to the spreading ridges.

So it's like the Earth is making biosediments at the surface from sunlight and then eating them, digesting them, and using the energy to poop out the mineral-remains of the digestion process.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Feb, 2020 10:22 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
the Earth is pooping out its outer core as convection mantle plumes and then the outer layers are sinking down with all the sediments they've accrued. By the time those sunken layers make it to the outer core, they've compressed/condensed and heated to the point of fueling the convection currents that send material back up to the spreading ridges.

you really should read more before you start making up "theories". Heres Just one example that fails to support your consistent belief. Over a thousand meter thick layer of fossil containing ROCK that originated in the Indian Ocean was slid to become India's mainland and forms the TOP layers of the Himalayan mountains
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sun 2 Feb, 2020 11:24 pm
I found some sediment in the bottom of my coffee mug after lunch. Will this make my waist line swell?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Feb, 2020 08:55 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
There is a huge amount of energy that goes into building a mountain range,
Its interesting that your thinking is fairly consistent ith the old timey methods of mountain building wherein these huge "geosynclines" (deep trenches that built up as erosion sediment filled them and , the thicker they got the more they sank. UNTIL, one day, with methods never ever explained, These sediment basins just rose and crashed against each other (mostly along continental margins) and mountains resulted.
Todays well evidenced theory of mountain building is thinking (if you dont like izza, think about 2 thick pile area rugs . The rugs can only move and slide across the loor when energy of motion is translated to a force wherein the "rug" merely ries across the floor as you move it from a point more in the rugs center (Rugs and tectonic plates have NO rigidity so arent moved by "pushing". So you move these two rugs toward each other and they crumple at their point of contact, (We call these mountain building analogies most stuents get it rather quickly), then w can get on with the "conveyor belt provided by the underlying convection cells in the mantle. The rug (or tectonic plate) is actully ferried along by the moving convection cells which are fueled by viscosity derived from the magma's thermal gradient.(The lava lamp is still the best analogy)

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Feb, 2020 08:56 am
@Setanta,
not if you didnt drink it. Youre lucky you asked me, Im all analogied out.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Feb, 2020 12:12 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Actually my industry is based on heated arguments among colleagues.


He's really a Senator.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Feb, 2020 05:14 pm
@McGentrix,
If I were a senator in today's congress, Id only talk with those who agree with me. That aint me.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Feb, 2020 06:11 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
the Earth is pooping out its outer core as convection mantle plumes and then the outer layers are sinking down with all the sediments they've accrued. By the time those sunken layers make it to the outer core, they've compressed/condensed and heated to the point of fueling the convection currents that send material back up to the spreading ridges.

you really should read more before you start making up "theories". Heres Just one example that fails to support your consistent belief. Over a thousand meter thick layer of fossil containing ROCK that originated in the Indian Ocean was slid to become India's mainland and forms the TOP layers of the Himalayan mountains

There's no conflict between reading and thinking actively. You can do both at the same time and modify your active thinking to take account of what you read.

You make the assumption that people are EITHER listening to and accepting received knowledge OR they are ignoring everything but what they make up with their own minds.

That is too simplistic a dichotomy. In reality there are many different ways of combining creative thinking with study of received information.

As for the issue of the ocean getting pushed up with the Himalayas, I knew that already. It doesn't mean that it's not part of a larger pattern in which sedimentary layers are gradually filtering downward as the outer core pushes material up toward the spreading ridges.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Feb, 2020 06:26 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
There is a huge amount of energy that goes into building a mountain range,
Its interesting that your thinking is fairly consistent ith the old timey methods of mountain building wherein these huge "geosynclines" (deep trenches that built up as erosion sediment filled them and , the thicker they got the more they sank. UNTIL, one day, with methods never ever explained, These sediment basins just rose and crashed against each other (mostly along continental margins) and mountains resulted.

I just read in another post where you admitted the Himalayas were pushed up from ocean sediments.

This 'geosyncline' theory you mention isn't more aligned with my thinking than any other model because all I am doing is looking for energy/motion patterns and thinking actively while looking for more information.

You keep accusing me of aligning with bad theories because you don't seem to want to just let people think and collect information. You want them to immediately align with something that is either established as mainstream/current theory or as rejected theory.

Why can't you just let me think and learn actively about this topic without trying to lump me into a faction?

Quote:
Todays well evidenced theory of mountain building is thinking (if you dont like izza, think about 2 thick pile area rugs . The rugs can only move and slide across the loor when energy of motion is translated to a force wherein the "rug" merely ries across the floor as you move it from a point more in the rugs center (Rugs and tectonic plates have NO rigidity so arent moved by "pushing". So you move these two rugs toward each other and they crumple at their point of contact, (We call these mountain building analogies most stuents get it rather quickly), then w can get on with the "conveyor belt provided by the underlying convection cells in the mantle. The rug (or tectonic plate) is actully ferried along by the moving convection cells which are fueled by viscosity derived from the magma's thermal gradient.(The lava lamp is still the best analogy)

Did you read my post about foam islands building up on top of a simmering soup?

Think of it in terms of rugs if you want, but the bottom line is that if you're pushing a heap of sand and some of the sand gets pushed upward, the repositioning of the sand to a higher elevation converted kinetic energy into potential energy.

There's no way to reframe it with some other analogy that can contradict the fundamental zero-sum relationship between kinetic and potential energy. When water goes up into the sky by evaporation, kinetic/heat energy is being converted into potential energy of altitude. When cold air condenses and bares down to generate wind, it is because it was pushed up first by heat/energy.

Avalanches/mudslides/etc. are all examples of potential energy getting converted into kinetic energy when they break free of their elevated position and slide downhill. The same energy that is released was stored in them by moving them uphill against the force of gravity.

There are two directions energy can go in: 1) release/entropy and 2)storage/anti-entropy.

You actually already agree with me that there's kinetic energy being expended to build mountain ranges; you just attribute that energy to primordial heat and radioactive decay and dismiss the contribution of sunken/subducted fossil fuels to interior energy.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Feb, 2020 09:45 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
converted kinetic energy into potential energy
which is totally 180 different than what youve insisted several pages back when you started to murmur about "Thermodynamics"

Im not stopping you from thinking, Im just urging you to do it correctly. Dont keep trying to sound like youre making sense to an old prospector. If you dont wish to pay ANY attention to modern geoscience then dont, but please stop making believe that youre in a debate armed with facts.
Ive asked you for your evidence to put you on the spot, youve just ignored my request.
Convection cells carry plates "on their back". Platesthen collide or merely expand the sea bed and continental craton. The convection cells cool and sink to where they are reheated and , like a lava lamp, rise and keep the convection belt going redy to rise and spread at the mid ocen ridges where they carry ocean crust shoreward (Weve seen at least 3 separate cycles of seafloor spreading affecting the North an SOuth AMerican pproto continents.

We have plnty of evidence supporting that as a really powerful THEORY. No crustal plates get carried into the core. If hey collide and either sub duct or do mountain building, they form granitic material which is less dense.

livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2020 04:11 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
converted kinetic energy into potential energy
which is totally 180 different than what youve insisted several pages back when you started to murmur about "Thermodynamics"

Idk what you think I meant about thermodynamics, but it is just the study of energy and how it moves and changes form from one system to another. Stephen Hawking got famous applying thermodynamics to black holes by coming up with a form of black body radiation that could be emitted by something with enough gravity to capture light.

In short, thermodynamics really just means theorizing/analyzing in terms of energy dynamics. It's a fancy term for something simple and straightforward, like when you try to figure out why your house uses over 500kwh/month.

Quote:
Im not stopping you from thinking, Im just urging you to do it correctly. Dont keep trying to sound like youre making sense to an old prospector. If you dont wish to pay ANY attention to modern geoscience then dont, but please stop making believe that youre in a debate armed with facts.

I don't know what you're talking about here. You seem to think aesthetics and self-regard plays a role in whether something is true or valid.

Quote:
Ive asked you for your evidence to put you on the spot, youve just ignored my request.

Evidence for what, exactly? That energy in the form of fossilized fuels are gradually sinking down and compounding to contribute to interior energy and heat processes? I could ask the same question about primordial heat and radioactive decay as explanations, since there is no direct evidence for that model either, is there?

Quote:
Convection cells carry plates "on their back". Platesthen collide or merely expand the sea bed and continental craton. The convection cells cool and sink to where they are reheated and , like a lava lamp, rise and keep the convection belt going redy to rise and spread at the mid ocen ridges where they carry ocean crust shoreward (Weve seen at least 3 separate cycles of seafloor spreading affecting the North an SOuth AMerican pproto continents.

Ok, so how long does the convected 'cell' stay aloft before it begins descending again, and where does it descend in relation to the subduction zone?

Quote:
We have plnty of evidence supporting that as a really powerful THEORY. No crustal plates get carried into the core. If hey collide and either sub duct or do mountain building, they form granitic material which is less dense.

You say no crustal plates get carried to the core, but do you mean that their material doesn't get carried at all, or that they don't get carried in whole chunks?

I think that if you look at a coastline, it erodes over time and deposits sediments at river deltas. So the continents are growing 'hair' all the time, which is shedding as sediments that erode and fall into the ocean to be subducted, along with all the sea floor sediments.

Also, if you look at how deep these tar sands and fracked gas layers are, that tells me a lot of material piles up on top of old sediments through time, and that those fossil fuels, if left untapped, would continue getting buried deeper and deeper until they reach the interface layer where the mantle is scraping at the bottom of the crustal plates. Once they reach that point, it is a little similar to coastline eroding into the sea, except instead of the sea, it is the mantle-flow that is carrying away the edge of the crust, and instead of the side-edge it's the bottom edge.

In short, I think the crustal plates appear as more-or-less stable shapes from our short-term perspective, but if you sped up time to the scale where the mantle plumes are really like lava lamp convection, you would see the continents growing layers on top and shedding material around their edges and from their bottom/floor into the flowing mantle below. They move around like pizza slices on a conveyor, as you say, because their net motion on top of the flowing mantle goes in one direction or another, but really they are like the dynamic foam-islands that float around on top of a simmering soup, which are changing shape all the time due to energy. On the continents, the shape-changing is due to weathering/erosion, volcanic activity, earthquakes, and layers moving downward as they are buried under surface sediments and as the bottom/floor of the plate gets scraped/swept away by the hot mantle flow beneath it.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2020 05:00 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:

Evidence for what, exactly?
See, even you dont know what the hell youre selling.


livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2020 05:40 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:

Evidence for what, exactly?
See, even you dont know what the hell youre selling.

You didn't read the rest of the post after the part you quoted here.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2020 05:59 pm
@livinglava,
trust me, it was still your patented word salad.

Im still chuckling at your ense of continental conveyances, and thermodynamics.
Are you familiar with the__G______ phase rule as we use it in geochemistry that defines igneous rock formation???

How many degrees of freedom would you propose ??
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2020 06:21 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

trust me, it was still your patented word salad.

Im still chuckling at your ense of continental conveyances, and thermodynamics.
Are you familiar with the__G______ phase rule as we use it in geochemistry that defines igneous rock formation???

How many degrees of freedom would you propose ??

You teeter between willingness to communicate with someone across lines of difference to tossing around specialized terminology to pull rank and thus avoid actually discussing the topic by explaining your knowledge.

I never know whether to engage in good-faith discussion with you or to brace for self-defense because you're going to shift gears into arrogant attack mode.

You always assume that something comes across to you as 'word salad' because of how it's written and not how you read it. You are too arrogant to grasp that you might just not devote sufficient reading comprehension skills to something because you already assume it's not worth reading before you try.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What is this..? - Discussion by jaygree
what are these marks on the rock? - Question by MaAxx8
good videos to learn geology - Discussion by danman68
MT Antero Colorado - Question by The Corpsman
Yttrium and Niobium in Granite - Question by EvilPenguinTrainer
Birth of an Ocean - Discussion by GoshisDead
Biotite vs Brown Hornblende - a noob question - Question by AllGoodNamesAreTaken
What's The Point To Geology? - Question by mark noble
Help Identifying Rocks - Discussion by mthick
identify kind of rocks - Question by georgevan1
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 07:57:54