arc

 

 

 

i believe you have created the greatest airline logo ever conceived.

I am reading Principia and i am not sure what he mains in certain paragraphs, such as this one:

 

"The orders of the parts of time is immutable, so is the order of the parts of space. Suppose those parts to be moved out of their places, and they will be moved...out of themselves. For times and places are...the places themselves as of all other things"

 

I'll take a shot at it;

 

"The orders of the parts of time is immutable, so is the order of the parts of space." Immutable is unchanging, forever the same, but this also means it is predictable.

 

"For times and places are...the places themselves as of all other things" He's saying he can determine any objects location in the past, present or future by their own positions in relation to time.

I guess in a perfect world a hot or warm grilled cheese would be better, but I can worry about temp after I fix the soggy thing. I ordered these from amazon to play around with.

Condensation is not the only mechanism that can produce soggy conditions. If you lower the atmospheric pressure of a container your will slowly draw the oils out of the cheese and into the bread. Cheese is mostly oil and water and they will easily transport in a vacuum, your best option is to maintain a steady temperature and adjust ingredients and cooking methods to optimize long term stability over time.

Question: If you pump the air out of the container (assuming perfect sealing) will the vacuum not encourage moisture to move through the food quicker until it's equally moist tbroughout?

 

That's what I would think, like sucking on an orange.

 

I think keeping the temperature as high as possible to that of just after cooking would eliminate the condensation problem. These bags come in different sizes so one could be put inside of another to extend the thermal content.

 

A single bag is rated for three hours, doubling up would be more than enough.

 

The next issue would be to try different cooking methods and butter/oils/margarine/? to grill the food with. One or another would perform the best at retaining the proper texture over the extended time period. Each would need to be tested by the little guy to his satisfaction.

 

 

 

MODEL NO. SIZE W x H x D WEIGHT CAPACITY QTY./ CASE PRICE PER CASE

135+S-19783 15" x 12" x 6" 20 lbs .25 $49

 

These can also be bought in smaller quantities, I saw some on Amazon for under 8 dollars for a set of three, each a different size.

 

My son is an awful eater. I need to get him to eat something somewhat healthy for school lunch. I want to pack him a grilled cheese sandwich or chicken nuggets in a container without them getting all moist and gross. I was thinking maybe a container that will let me pump the air out of it once it's sealed could work or I was thinking at wrapping some Molecular Sieve to the lid on the inside of the container to absorb the moisture. Do es anybody think this will work and if not does anybody have an idea?

 

 

I am sorry for the difficulties you face, I know how overwhelming they are for you and your family. I have Aspergers and I didn't have a clue as to the impact my early behaviour had on my family until I was grown and was raising two Asperger boys of my own. My wife was able to stay at home and take the greatest share of the work of not only raising those two but also two more siblings that for all of our gratitude were free of this condition.

 

Our oldest son, who is now 29 and thriving, was absolutely and unanimously disliked by every teacher in his grade school and true to his condition, he had not a clue of any of it. He thought every one of them loved him!

 

On the other hand, my now 27 year old son who was so sweet yet stubborn beyond any known metric developed eating peculiarities when quite young, these are still a difficulty to this day. It has been very hard on my wife to be still caring for him on a daily basis for so long of a time. His condition seems at times to be getting more severe and we are quite certain we will care for him until we're gone. And of course worry what will become of him then. This is a very isolating condition and demands more than many are willing to give as you of course already know.

 

I wonder if keeping the food as close to the original temperature would work for the grilled cheese sandwich, they have some amazing stay hot food containers now. It seems that the condensation forms during cooling. Wrapping the sandwich in wax paper and then in several paper towels before going into the thermal pouch might control any moisture that would result. Also, maybe try aluminum foil to some capacity in different combination with the other two suggestions. I'm sure we can figure this out.

 

I know you're exasperated by this and all the other countless details you face but please try experimenting a little and see what you can develop. Come back and give us an update, and we may be able to work around any new problems. The folks here are really not as difficult to deal with as you might at first thought, you and I have just walked a different path than most of them have.

 

I hope we can stay in touch, feel free to PM me if you have any ideas or thoughts.

According to this research below, Mars could have experienced in its distant past a scenario similar to what the OP outlined.

 

 

http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~manga/phillips2001.pdf
Ancient Geodynamics and Global-Scale Hydrology on Mars
Roger J. Phillips,1 Maria T. Zuber, 2, 3 Sean C. Solomon, 4 Matthew P. Golombek,5 Bruce M. Jakosky 6 W. Bruce Banerdt, 5 David E. Smith,3
Rebecca M. E. Williams, 1 Brian M. Hynek, 1 Oded Aharonson, 2 Steven A. Hauck II, 1
1 McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
2 Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
3 Earth Sciences Directorate, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA.
4 Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC 20015, USA.
5 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA.
6 Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.

The release of CO2 and H2O to the martian atmosphere from magma erupted and intruded during Tharsis formation may have affected the Noachian climate. For the 100-km-thick elastic lithosphere we assume (2), the observed topography plus the volume of material contained within the depression resulting from Tharsis loading amounts to ~ 3 x 10^8 km^3 of igneous material, which is equivalent to a 2-km-thick global layer (30). For a magmatic CO2 content of 0.65 weight percent (wt %) [which is consistent with Hawaiian basaltic lavas (31)] and an H2O content of 2 wt % (32), the total release of gases from Tharsis magmas could produce the integrated equivalent of a 1.5-bar CO2 atmosphere and a 120-m-thick global layer of water. These quantities of volatiles are sufficient to warm the atmosphere to the point at which liquid water is stable at the surface (33). The accumulation of atmospheric CO2 may have made the latter part of the Noachian the most favorable time for this condition.

I believe this image is the most revealing of the lot.

 

 

Those beams defiantly took a hit, whether it was just the first one that was struck and then the bracing duplicated the forces to the adjacent beam or the lift contacted each beam in succession, is unclear. That bracing is lined up with the deformations rather nicely though. I believe the beam's final resting place, so far short of the ledge, suggests the beam's horizontal movement in addition to the shortening from the beam's deformation would be adequate to move the beam's end clear of its support.

 

Another thing that is interesting in that image above is the in-beds on top of the beams look as if their welds failed at every location, they don't appear to have even spalled the concrete anywhere. They also appear to be in much shorter quantity than in studiot's image, the ones that can be seen in the red stripe of oxide paint, pulled from the beam by the concrete, show spacing possibly +/- a meter. Theirs something fishy about that area where the beams contacted the deck above.

Thank you for the extra picture.

 

It looks more like a steel beam than a concrete one. Steel is more malleable; concrete would be less likely to twist like that although it is still not clear.

 

I still see no evidence of preexisting weakness, the supports appear still sound.

 

14' 4" headroom clearly marked.

What is the US/Oaklahoma standard?

 

The damage remains consistent with my hypothesis of the edge beam being lifted off and dropped, at one end.

It is still capable of supporting itself for the full span (albeit diagnal now) even though a bit twisted.

So it did not fail in bending.

A plastic failure hinge would have formed midspan in that case.

 

Here is some images I took today in Portland Oregon. This seems to be a nationally standard design from the 1950's or very early 60's:

 

 

This overpass was seismically up-graded in the past 15 years or so, you can see the cement blocking (A) that was added between the steel beams:

 

I believe the cement was pumped into the formed section, I am looking into the exact technique used.

 

 

The beam ends on the ledge were also boxed-in with cement:

 

 

And too also above the lintels:

 

 

This additional bracing does not appear to be present in the failed structure. Once those beams were rolled sideways, twisted by the heavy equipment passing underneath, the deck above would have little support.

 

 

The working platform of the construction equipment is lying under the outside beam, the force of the impact tore the equipment off the tractor-trailer that was hauling it. It appears there is some type of bracing between the first and second beam, that may have duplicated the sideload of the first beam to that of the second one. Without the boxed-in ends at the ledge there was probably little to hold them in place but a few bolts, so they were likely pulled off the ledge as they folded.

But I was able to drink a glass of water while typing both these posts.

OK . . . . . . I guess vodka has enough water in it straight out of the bottle, you could say that.

Coal is simply an end product of a multi MY process of concentrating the wood and other derived source carbon through heat and pressure at great depths within the Earth. The wood could also be put through an artificial refining process of heat and pressure that would reduce it to the same MJ/L as the coal.

I would guess that after many years of experience the moderators and even some members have probably developed the skill to pick up subtle similarities in the M.O. of the average puppeteer. In just the few years that I have been here many of the members that regularly post have imprinted their own style of writing that resembles to me a recognisable pattern or "voice".

 

That writing pattern is surprisingly rather hard to break. Your average puppeteer would need to invest some extra effort to hide their identity. And that's rather unlikely, given that the puppet's creation is likely due to laziness and an unwillingness to put in the effort to do good work in the first place.

What happens in the reference frame of the balloon?

You get wet.

In a way, a visit to a science forum is not unlike a first time dip in an unfamiliar public swimming pool. The visitor is likely to be, in either venue, self-conscious, unless of course they are attractive in a swimsuit or scientifically competent in either of the appropriate regards.

 

When I started here I was a nervous wreck every time I was posting, it took me well over a year to calm down. I'm sure it caused me to overreact in my responses to the inquiries of others. I believe this is the crux of the matter here.

 

A swimming facility with an inadequate filtering system would likely not attract the novice, amateur or professional clientele that overwhelmingly behave properly and have the appropriate hygiene practices that takes the considerations of the other users as a priority.

 

Do the moderators, from many threads experience, perceive a likely pattern of behavior in many new members and act in a predictable manner in response? Probably so. Are they usually right? Most likely.

 

One can imagine a swimming hole somewhere else, where all the drunken locals show up for their bath/swim/ let’s just relieve ourselves while we’re at it, no need for rules.

 

What we are considering here after all is how clean and inviting this site appears to a first time visitor/prospective member, not to mention the continued satisfaction of the regular members.

 

I really do not see any problems with the moderation on this site. They keep the site working smoothly for the overall benefit of all members and visitors. Thanks for all the hard work, you are appreciated!

 

Do we need or really want a separate kiddie pool with a low or no hygiene requirement?

 

Does it seem likely these individuals would not become lax in discerning their location and their appropriate responsibilities in regards to it?

 

Would other new members not realize that they have clicked onto an unregulated thread from the new content list and assume the whole site is a free for all? I see a cross contamination issue in this idea.

 

edit: spelling error.

arc, I have a new theory of subduction mechanism. By my thinking subduction occurs because a bazillion of dwarves get together and pull the oceanic plate down. Sometimes they decide to stop and have a break, sometimes they pull harder and sometimes they suddenly decide to start pulling in an entirely different place.

 

This sounds retarded, doesn't it, but given enough time I could bring my "theory" in a complete accordance with all the observational evidence and even make some predictions based on it. Unfortunately, everyone will still think it's retarded until I'm able to prove in a mathematical framework or modelling that these dwarves can exist and that they can create forces required.

 

You hypothesis has dwarves too, they live in the core, run currents through it to heat it up and then come together and push the core-mantle boundary upwards.

 

Pavelcherepan, we could call this billiards part II, because this thread has been down this road already. Those dwarfs or whatever you personally want to call them (your choice) have been busy for at least 545 million years doing what this model predicted from post #1. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/#entry735239

 

“The cycle begins with a small thermal increase in the molten iron core from increased current due to induction from the strengthening of the Sun's magnetic field. As the molten core presses out from thermal expansion it expands the mantle ever so slightly which opens the divergent plate boundaries in the currently observed manner, filling with magma as they expand. After several million years of this solar increase induced cycle the Sun's magnetic field lowers and the Earth's field generator's core begins a cooler period of operation. As the core and mantle slowly recede the crust is put into compression against the newest divergent boundary deposits which leverages the crust towards the trench as the crust follows the mantle as it recedes from the cooling core.” (Pay close attention to that underlined part.)

 

The mantle oscillates - as predicted by this model. They are real measurable phenomena.

 

Here are the two papers regarding them.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10736864_Bonatti_E_et_al_Mantle_thermal_pulses_below_the_Mid Atlantic_Ridge_and_temporal_variations_in_the_formation_of_oceanic_lithosphere_Nature_423_499-505

 

http://www.geoconvention.com/archives/2013/183_GC2013_Episodic_Tectonics.pdf

 

“Fifty-six, large magnitude sequence boundaries have been delineated in the Phanerozoic succession of Arctic North America. The characteristics of the boundaries indicate that they were primarily generated by tectonics. The boundaries occur with an approximate 10 million year frequency (9.8 +/- 3.1). Each boundary was generated during a tectonic episode interpreted to reflect a mantle-driven, plate tectonic reorganization and consequent changes in regional stress fields. It is estimated that the duration of each of the tectonic episodes was in the range of a few million years and was significantly shorter than the intervening times of tectonic quiescence.” (Hey look at that! It says several million years too!)

 

Now, being a professional geologist, you must still be operating under the assumption that massive mathematically modeled convective movements of mantle material are at work in the mantle. Rising up, moving the tectonic plates around, building mountain ranges, pushing plates into convergent boundaries and all that stuff. And you feel fine believing that . . . .good.

 

Now could you please explain without resorting to dwarfs (because those are for my model.)

1. How the material in the mantle convects

2. How mantle dynamics and plate kinematics are linked at the surface

 

Now if you can’t do that I’m quite worried that your foundational understanding of geology may be based on an incorrect mathematical model. And further, that you have based your entire premise on an unseen and purely imagined idea that is little more than a figment of imagination.

 

Let’s call those figments; mantle Gnomes.

 

The mantle oscillations that this model uses to make accurate predictions of observations are actually real and documented to have taken place, while the mantle convections of the standard model have remained unobserved and are merely a mathematical hypothesis.

 

So, please clear this up. Give us the answers to those two questions.

 

Hint: I know you won’t/can’t answer those two questions.

 

Why do I know you can’t?

 

http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_

MANTLE DYNAMICS AND PLATE KINEMATICS

Carlo Doglioni, La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Roberto Sabadini, University of Milan, Italy

 

". . . . . none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle."

 

“nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects”

 

Yup . . . . . you have a bad case of the Gnomes . . So, . .pot calls kettle . . .

 

But this quote is my favorite:

"The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle"

 

It is interesting how this sentence describes the behavior of a crust that has an outward displacing mantle beneath it, just as it was proposed by this model. That whole paragraph has so much good information; it’s rather refreshing to hear the honest truth about convection instead of all that rainbows, lollipops and convection Gnome’s mathematical speculations that is commonly sweetened with so much self-deluded confidence.

 

Again, the mantle oscillations have been actually documented to have occurred above and below the crust. Reality and my Dwarves are kicking the crap out of your imaginary convection model and its Gnomes.

 

This model predicted them (the Dwarves and their oscillations, not the Gnomes) and their effects were debated with several members of the forum for several pages to what I feel was a satisfactory conclusion.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry891454

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry900283

 

Mathematical models are great and are the foundation of science but at this point in time if you’re a geologist and you’re getting your Gnomes squished by some guy’s Dwarves, it’s time to get a better model.

 

So, billiards has dodged these questions for many pages now, I keep asking for predictions of observations, just some simple causes and effects for the standard model’s convection theory . . . . . . and they never seem to show up . . . . .DAMB UNRELIABLE GNOMES!

 

. Regardless of how well your idea matches observations, you still have to show that these "dwarves" are there.

 

My model predicted what the Dwarves do, how they do it and when they do it.

 

And what can your model predict?

 

“none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects.”

 

Oh right, that would be nothing.

 

You need to show mathematically, that induction currents from solar magnetic field can produce amounts of energy required, that the expansion of the core is significant enough to influence expansion of lithosphere and that rather than relieving stress in many other ways the mantle has at its disposal, it would, for some weird reason, just lift up. Unless you can show that your idea will never be accepted.

 

Well, If they’ll accept mantle Gnomes, I’ll assume for now they’ll accept my accurate predictions of observations of plate movement that were derived from the mantle oscillations seen in Doglioni et al and Embry et al research papers, and the predictions of observations in post’s 422 and 426 where I explained in a simple dynamic model how these oscillations put in place enough GPE to raise the Atlantic MOR.

 

And once again I'll have to refer you to Guidelines for Speculations Discussions which coincidentally is exactly on the point of my comment above (bolded part):

 

3. Specific predictions often require math. Do not expect others to do your math for you, nor should you consider the math to be a trivial and therefore unimportant part of your conjecture it's usually crucial. e.g. a vague explanation that something will get hot would not separate your idea from some other idea. Predicting a temperature dependence on certain conditions would allow for that.

 

Exactly why you need to show some predictions of observations for that vague, hypothetical mantle convection (I know you can’t because Doglioni spilled the beans) unlike those mantle oscillations. (Because those are real!)

 

This is where you need to show by direct cause and effect what Doglioni said has not been done yet. Since the whole standard model is dependent on and supported by mantle convective currents, you must show first that the convective currents even exist like the oscillations do. Then you need to show with a simple dynamic model of cause and effect how they drive the plates around and produce the observable results such as mountain orogeny.

 

But I know you won’t, what you are going to do instead is do the only thing you can, vacillate and give ambivalent generalizations;

 

“It’s soooo elegant”

 

And then when pressed;

 

"Ooooh, . . . . it’s a veeeery complicated problem, but were reeeeally closing in on it."

 

 

 

In cases where math may not be required, you still need to be able to make predictions that distinguish your idea from existing theories, e.g. predicting some result where mainstream theory predicts nothing happens, or some other clear distinction. If you can't do this, it's a sign you need a more detailed model.

 

Right, exactly what I have done, I showed the existing theory is flawed, and that it could not make any accurate predictions of observations. Again, that whole Atlantic MOR post several pages back where this model kicked your Gnomes’ butt.

 

Also it's quite fascinating how you consider that for a top-down theory using observational evidence for both deriving a theory and proving its validity is acceptable. You can't do that. It's a circular logic.

 

No, convection gnomes are circular logic. Again, you need to get your own speculative house in order before you can tell someone else how to run theirs, I have stayed true to the model I started this thread with and it has performed wonderfully, you should be so fortunate. But you would first need to dump that out of date model you have.

 

I'm also quite amazed how you managed to comment on all of my questions without actually answering them.

 

Let’s see how you do with those two questions regarding Doglioni’s revelation that the standard model is powered by some mysterious phenomena we can now, by your logic, refer to as Gnomes.

 

We're not talking about what I know. We're talking about your hypothesis. Please stick to it.

 

Oh we certainly are, you need to back-up what you’re saying, I’ve called into question the accuracy of the standard model with statements by a renowned geologists. You are challenging my model from a position of authority. If you cannot satisfactorily show the convection model to be superior to my model in making predictions then my model stands.

 

Do you not agree that since all short-lived isotopes have decayed and most of high-energy impacts have finished, the Earth started to slowly cool down at a modeled rate of ~100^oC/billion years? By your idea such a decrease in temperature should lead to an overall increase in the number of subduction zones over time. Can you show that this is happening?

 

No, I believe it is your idea that according to the standard model the cooling planet would lead to more subduction zones. In my model subduction zones occur where I explained in post 454. This is due to those periodically occurring oscillations that determined how much or how little GPE is available in the crust to drive subduction or to raise mountain ranges.

"The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle"

 

The outward displacing mantle (as noted above) could at certain times impose substantial shear forces on the crust that could reduce the GPE and in turn produce extensional features like the Basin and Range and pull Island Arc’s towards their trenches. During the eventual mantle subsidence the crust would once again begin loading with increasing GPE that will, in turn, push the plates once more into the convergent boundaries or more rarely, upwards as mountain ranges.

 

 

You're mixing cause and effect here. Earth's magnetic field originates from a geodynamo in the liquid outer core. If, for some reason Earth's magnetic field strength increased, this could be because the temperature of outer core has increased, but it would not lead to a further increase of the core temperature, because then you're stuck in an infinite positive feedback loop.

 

No, I’m referring to time varying Solar magnetic induction of the planetary geodynamo. Similar to this paper regarding how Ganymede responds to Jupiter’s much larger and more powerful field.

 

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/ICRUS1572507.pdf

 

"Magnetometer data from Galileo’s multiple flybys of Ganymede provide significant, but not unambiguous, evidence that the moon, like its neighboring satellites Europa and Callisto, responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field."

 

 

 

Yet again, you can't use observations to prove validity of the model when it's already created in a top-down fashion and is based on that same evidence. And please stop linking enormous posts, can't you present a short and condensed extract of what it's all about?

 

My reference to "top down" is in regards to;

 

The surface observations should direct you to what is unobservable. If you cannot see the source then what is observable should direct you to the answer, It should be reverse engineered from what is observable.

 

Do I need to quote Doglioni again? You have 89 years of efforts to fit Arthur Holmes' 1927 model to what is continually developing on the surface as a completely different series of causes and effects. How long are you going to keep trying to pound that square peg into that round hole?

 

Just so that I don't look like a person who refuses to properly study argumentation, I went and read the post you've linked. It did not open my eyes, if only a few times in a honest befuzzlement. I see absolutely no point in discussing it or even reading it in the first place.

 

Nice, obvious bias on your part. Many others have managed to overlook my horrendous lack of skill and were able to plod through it. By the way, it does compare and correlate the solar magnetic 14C proxy, climate variability and the Japanese earthquake records in time and intensity to those busy little dwarves. So it works, despite its warts.

 

I did not ask you for evidence about water presence on early Earth. We're talking about subduction. You made a claim of when it started and I want you to back it up. Why couldn't subduction have started before water has largely condensed? Is the presence of the shallow ocean somewhat important to your model?

 

I believe it is an essential ingredient in either model. Do you believe “dry” plate tectonics is possible? Would the standard model work without the ocean basins?

 

But it is an ongoing debate. I found this paper outlining it helpful.

 

http://www.ens-lyon.fr/DSM/SDMsite/M2/stages_M2/Bouffard2013.pdf

 

For me, I consider Venus’ stagnant lid and Earth’s mobile lid a compelling argument for the need of water. That paper on my last post showed of a very early watering of Earth and eliminated for me the likelihood that plate tectonics existed prior. Also neither planet shows evidence of changing regimes for any period of time; it doesn’t appear to switch off and then switch back on later. But Venus could reveal more on this question after future missions have been made.

 

In this model the plate tectonic would begin when the crust was finally capable of sustaining substantial amounts of shear forces from the outward displacement of the mantle and then the compression forces when the mantle subsided once again. A shallow ocean would supply a means to cool and strengthen the crust, allowing the process to begin, and more important, become a continuous cycle.

 

"The first subductions probably began during that time long ago when all that existed was proto crust beneath a shallower ocean."

 

"Any evidence for this?"

 

Oh yes I see, it is so obvious due to the specificity of your question. The record of mantle oscillations suggests they have been occurring for 545 million years. I’m going to assume the planet has always oscillated from its earliest beginnings with plate tectonics beginning long after when the crust could finally withstand the dynamic load forces applied to it by the oscillations.

 

Ok, say we have Himalayas where the Indian subcontinent collided with the Eaurasian plate. These are both continental plates of similar average thickness and composition and even though Indian plate was actually being pulled down by the still attached subducting slab of oceanic plate, it didn't go under Eurasian plate. Instead, we had collision and orogeny.

 

Well, let’s stop there for a moment; this is a perfect example of why I think the standard model is overrated.

 

http://ceas.iisc.ern...h_geology06.pdf

 

Gravitational potential energy of the Tibetan Plateau and the forces driving the Indian plate

 

Attreyee Ghosh, William E. Holt Department of Geosciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11790, USA

 

Lucy M. Flesch* Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC 20015, USA

 

A. John Haines† Bullard Laboratories, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0EZ, UK

ABSTRACT

"We present a study of the vertically integrated deviatoric stress field for the Indian plate and the Tibetan Plateau associated with gravitational potential energy (GPE) differences. Although the driving forces for the Indian plate have been attributed solely to the mid-oceanic ridges that surround the entire southern boundary of the plate, previous estimates of vertically integrated stress magnitudes of 6–7 1012 N/m in Tibet far exceed those of 3 1012 N/m associated with GPE at mid-oceanic ridges, calling for an additional force to satisfy the stress magnitudes in Tibet. We use the Crust 2.0 data set to infer gravitational potential energy differences in the lithosphere. We then apply the thin sheet approach in order to obtain a global solution of vertically integrated deviatoric stresses associated only with GPE differences. Our results show large N-S extensional deviatoric stresses in Tibet that the ridge-push force fails to cancel."

 

. . . ."there is no complete dynamic explanation for this large GPE of the Tibetan Plateau and the relatively fast movement of the Indian plate. There is no apparent down going slab attached to the Indian plate that might assist in driving the plate into Eurasia through the slab pull mechanism" . . . . .

 

. . . . "However, the ridge push, or vertically integrated deviatoric stress magnitude, which is 3 1012 N/m (Richardson, 1992; Harper, 1975; Lister; 1975; Parsons and Richter, 1980), is not sufficient to satisfy inferred stress magnitudes of 6–7 1012 N/m that result from GPE differences between the Tibetan Plateau and the surrounding lowlands (Molnar and Lyon-Caen, 1988). An additional force is required to explain the disparity between the excess GPE of Tibet relative to that of the mid-oceanic ridges" . . . .

 

Conclusions;

. . "It is clear that something is missing as a driving force that does not have its source within the lithospheric shell."

 

Well, the standard model's convection model seems to be unable address the reality of this research. Would you please to the best of your abilities explain how convection can lead to the levels of GPE needed to produce the world’s mountain ranges?

 

So here now is another very difficult question for standard model to answer.

 

Add this one to the other two;

1. How does the material in the mantle convect?

2. How mantle dynamics and plate kinematics are linked at the surface?

 

And now;

3. How does mantle convection produce the required levels of GPE in the crust?

 

We all know already the standard model is incapable of dealing with this reality. Poor little Gnomes.

 

Mantle oscillation in this model will produce massive loads of GPE. When the mantle is slowly raised the divergent boundaries are slowly being filled, then after several million years the mantle moves down again and the ridge infill will begin loading the crust with GPE. The level of GPE is determined by the length of the expansion period and the quantity of the MOR material that was put in place during it. This value will then be balanced against the length of time and the degree that the mantle subsides. This resulting GPE drives the planet’s subduction and during rare occasions produces global periods of mountain building as was explained in post 422 and repeatedly explained throughout this thread.

 

 

 

Then, in your model, if you have a more or less uniform proto-crust, why would one of the pieces of it get subducted under the other, rather than resulting in orogeny as well?

OK, you saw that image, the description said;

 

“When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries. As it failed under the increasing pressures it became a convergent boundary as one edge subducted under the other.”

 

In that diagram, a compression ridge is a mountain range, the subduction that followed is no less similar to what N. America is currently doing in overriding the Pacific Plate.

 

And what is seen here; https://www.iris.edu/hq/NSFProposal/Volume2/Lith.pdf

 

Lithospheric Layering in the North American Craton

Huaiyu Yuan (Berkeley Seismological Laboratory),

Barbara Romanowicz (Berkeley Seismological Laboratory)

 

"Recent receiver function studies detect structural boundaries under continental cratons at depths too shallow to be consistent with the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary (LAB) as inferred from seismic tomography and other geophysical studies. Using the new results from our regional surface wave tomographic inversion for the North American upper mantle shear wave structure, we show (Figure1) that changes in the direction of azimuthal anisotropy with depth reveal the presence of two distinct lithospheric layers throughout the stable part of the North American (NA) continent [Yuan and Romanowicz, 2010]."

 

. . . . ."American craton may be exceptionally simple, the application of this tool to other continents should provide further insights on the assembly and evolution of cratons worldwide."

 

The crust would take the path of least resistance, and only change its subduction angle when required to add one more layer under the existing craton. At some point it stops when the craton's thickness exceeds the available GPE and the plates abilities to do so, the resulting plate angle produces instead the currently observed Island Arc subduction regime.

 

If, on the other hand, we say that there were areas of different density then we're looking at the existing model of subduction initiating mechanism.

 

And that’s fine, if you feel that model satisfies all your questions about plate movement and mountain building great.

 

I’m not satisfied, hence this model.

 

You seem to have taken a lot of liberties with your model. Yet again, I repeat my question - what is so different between "flat" subduction and "steep" subduction so that the former will result in creating of continental crust and the latter wouldn't?

 

Beating dead horses, eh. Well because, if you happened to notice that Huaiyu Yuan et al paper I showed above and in my last post, it described a very similar scenario.

 

“reveal the presence of two distinct lithospheric layers throughout the stable part of the North American”

 

It appears from the above description the early subduction was likely very flat, and when you also consider these rocks sometimes date back from 2 to 3.5 billion years, this model’s contention that as these layers were added to the underside of the ones above them, they were gradually pushed deeper and then rose again as the upper portions were eroded fit rather nicely to the observations as well.

 

In the Grand Canyon’s Great Unconformity the Tonto Group is overlying the Vishnu Basement Rocks where there is a gap of around 1.2 billion years between the 550 million year old Tapeats Sandstone and the 1.7 billion year old Vishnu Basement Rocks.

 

“As this cycle repeated the areas of crust where large scale lamination of two and then three and so on layers of subducting crust had been placed would begin to press those lowest layers deeper into the mantle, farther than ever before. The more complex tectonic processes that are now observed today rely still on the simple outer core thermal cycles described above. The continents have evolved into cratonic structures that are still built, moved and destroyed by the simple mechanism that the model provides.”

Does this somehow sound out of line with the Huaiyu Yuan et al research paper? Would you not agree that the 1.2 billion years’ worth of missing material from the GC Great Unconformity was destroyed through erosional and tectonic processes?

 

 

There are plenty of reasons why it wouldn't. Just as I said, the new crust is thinner, weaker, comprised of more dense mantle material and it's much more likely that the convergent boundary would form there almost 100 times out of 100.

 

Well, you’re mixing your model with mine, mine has the displacing mantle, but I’m not getting sucked into that abyss of sorting the two out for you.

 

 

.Well, cratons do get eroded, at least in areas where they are exposed but they don't get destroyed or created since the time they formed.

 

And PT has a long way to go. The show is not over by any means or measurement. But more importantly, that 1.2 billion year's worth of missing continental material above the 1.7 billion year old Vishnu Basement Rocks indicates that the continental material is being removed as the craton is being slowly raised toward the surface by what appears from that Huaiyu Yuan et al paper is additional layers of crustal material from below, material BTW that is probably younger than the material above it.

 

 

You don't have a model. It doesn't work.

 

Gnome calls Dwarf . . . .

 

 

 

 

Yay! Dwarves!

 

Go! Gnomes!

 

And, based on the issues raised by Ghosh et al and Doglioni et al, I’m going to need those three questions answered along with some predictions of observations for the mantle convection and mountain orogeny when you get a chance, you know, some clear and understandable series of causes and effects like I did in post 422. Or I’m going to pound you about it with every post.

 

 

The standard model is under as much scrutiny as this model is, if you keep demanding answers and then refuse to produce evidence that the standard model can produce the answers to those three questions and predictions as accurate as this model did in post 422, then you will lose. As of post 422 this model is more than one up on the standard model's mantle convection.

 

Here they are again;

1. How does the material in the mantle convect in regards to Doglioni et al?

2. How are mantle dynamics and plate kinematics linked at the surface in regards to Doglioni et al?

3. How does mantle convection produce the required levels of GPE in the crust in regards to Ghosh et al?

 

As this is a cornerstone of the model we're discussing, I'd suggest you present the mechanism that would create such temperature variances, especially, given that you think it's such a simple matter. Although, maybe you have already presented it, but I can't persuade myself to browse through all other 22 pages of gigantic posts.

 

I believe I just did in post 454.

 

 

 

How does your model reconcile with the fact that the Earth has been cooling ever since the end of Late Heavy Bombardment. Do you have any data that shows the overall increase of the number of subduction zones over last couple billions of years?

 

I didn’t claim there had been. I‘m simply answering the question raised by billiards, how did/does subduction originate? Perhaps you know the answer?

 

 

 

Well, this is just plain wrong in the form it's currently phrased.

 

In regards to the earth’s magnetic field increasing in strength, the outer core’s liquid iron wouldn’t increase in temperature?

 

 

 

Have you considered a possibility of structural change of mantle minerals in the contact area between outer core and lower mantle, which could reduce the volume and allow to dissipate the stress without the need to lift the entire mantle?

 

The process of metamorphism is extremely abundant in nature due to the fact that it's energetically more viable than all alternatives.

 

No I haven’t due to the rather nice fit the model has to surface geology, it was built in a top down fashion and this fits the surface geology rather nicely, it is the simple approach to the problem. Use what you can see to deduce what you can’t. Rather than the “think of some sort of unseen movement and think you can math your way to the surface” as is the current situation.

 

These two posts give a nice example of this model's abilities. But they are long, but that is how I make my counter argument and show the model's strength.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry891454

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry900283

 

 

 

How exactly did you link the magnetic field into the mix? Is it your mechanism for temperature variance?

 

Subtle clues in the solar magnetic and Japanese earthquake records . . . . . . I’m so tempted to bomb you with a wall of text and graphs, I can hardly contain myself! You should just read the post, It’s long, you’ll roll your eyes when you see it. But it will outline it pretty well. I did make an error on one of the graph sources, ice core not 14C, can’t go back and fix it though.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry815114

 

 

"The first subductions probably began during that time long ago when all that existed was proto crust beneath a shallower ocean."

 

Any evidence for this?

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267746567_Early_solar_system_Early_accretion_of_water_in_the_inner_solar_system_from_a_carbonaceous_chondrite-like_source

 

“Eucrites provide a substantially earlier data point, which suggests that the source of Earth’s water was present in the inner solar system very early,~8 to 20 million years after CAIs (15,16). This evidence moves back the time at which the terrestrial water reservoir is thought to exist and have been available for accretion. Additionally, this reservoir was present between 1 and 2.4 AU and perhaps throughout the inner solar system. Late-stage addition of water to planets from outer parts of the solar system is therefore unlikely to have affected the water budgets of inner solar system bodies.”

 

And this a news story on the same research.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141030-starstruck-earth-water-origin-vesta-science/

 

 

 

Explain how, if the original proto-crust was more or less uniform (not separated into oceanic and continental), why is one of the plates subducted below the other rather than forming a mountain ridge, like Himalayas or Tibet, for example?

 

Those mountain ranges are on subduction zones, they would not exist but for subduction. Is this some kind of trick question? The post said;

 

“Eventually the magnetic field energy lowers and the outer core contracts placing the crust in compression against the most recent deposits of seafloor. The first subductions probably began during that time long ago when all that existed was proto crust beneath a shallower ocean. When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries.”

 

 

 

By "flat" are you referring to a shallow angle of subduction? Why "flat" subduction specifically provides genesis for the first continents, while, say, "steep" subduction wouldn't?

 

I took the liberties to assume the first skim that formed on that early Earth’s surface was made of lighter less dense “slag” type crust compared to later more chemically complex mineral varieties that would have formed as these stacked sections were gradually forced deeper in time. Eventually they would come up as the upper layers were eroded away as the post expresses. I doubt they would have the durability to do anything at a sharper angle, they are slag, they would just pile up like a train wreck or slid over or under one another.

 

 

Why wouldn't your divergent boundary during the cycle of expansion not become a convergent boundary during the contraction phase? Think of it, it's a new part of crust that has a lower thickness, perchance it hasn't cooled down completely, it's much weaker. Why would convergent boundary form anywhere else?

 

I think you should read it again.

“When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries. As it failed under the increasing pressures it became a convergent boundary as one edge subducted under the other."

 

And there's no reason that the crust could not fracture next to a convergent boundary or anywhere else, becoming a new divergent boundary tension relieving mechanism and staying one as long as there is a convergent compression relieving mechanism/s somewhere to counter the need to process the crust as the GPE waxes and wanes.

 

 

I'm not sure why you've decided to bold parts of the passage from Wikipedia. There's no contradiction in the existing model between having mineral associations of billions of years old that have been at one stage subducted and are now exposed on the surface. A very knowledgeable forum member even have said structure as his forum name.

 

I do these things in hopes it will cause the reader to stop and read the wiki’s or other quotes instead of just skipping over them and make an argument about something that would have been explained by it. And also all of this ends up on my website or comes from it first, and that site is for regular people, you know us simple folk that don’t know the lexicon of geologists.

 

 

 

Since you've decided to quote Wikipedia article on cratons, why do you then go and contradict the very definition of a craton which is in paragraph 1 on the page:

 

I.e. cratons are stable and have been so for billions of years. There are by no means regularly created and destroyed. And there is a plethora of data to prove this based on radioisotope dating.

 

They are continually being eroded away from the top down and all sides. They are continually driven over oceanic crust. Interesting isn’t it. They seem to be slowly moved up as they are worn down.

 

Lithospheric Layering in the North American Craton

Huaiyu Yuan (Berkeley Seismological Laboratory),

Barbara Romanowicz (Berkeley Seismological Laboratory)

 

"Recent receiver function studies detect structural boundaries under continental cratons at depths too shallow to be consistent with the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary (LAB) as inferred from seismic tomography and other geophysical studies. Using the new results from our regional surface wave tomographic inversion for the North American upper mantle shear wave structure, we show (Figure1) that changes in the direction of azimuthal anisotropy with depth reveal the presence of two distinct lithospheric layers throughout the stable part of the North American (NA) continent [Yuan and Romanowicz, 2010]."

 

. . . . ."American craton may be exceptionally simple, the application of this tool to other continents should provide further insights on the assembly and evolution of cratons worldwide."

 

Earth is a little over halfway to the end of its habitable-zone lifetime but I would venture to guess plate tectonics will go a ways longer. But I see what you mean; I may work on that some more and see what I find. I may change that on my website depending if they can substantially survive to the end of PT.

 

 

 

I think I should have a surprise for you. The current model explains quite well the difference in the character of interaction with a continent between Atlantic and Pacific.

 

Maybe so, but I like how easily my model works through everything. A very simple idea. It’s the model T of PT.

 

Have you considered other alternatives that could cause an oscillating temperature of the core?

 

For 545 million years it has oscillated at least 56 times.

 

"The boundaries occur with an approximate 10 million year frequency (9.8 +/- 3.1). Each boundary was generated during a tectonic episode interpreted to reflect a mantle-driven, plate tectonic reorganization and consequent changes in regional stress fields. Such episodes likely lasted for a few million years and were separated by longer intervals of relative tectonic quiescence. There are indications that the recognized tectonic episodes affected basins throughout the world.”

I will stick to my model's suggestion that they are solar magnetic in origin, the timing is fairly consistent, the increase/decrease in the planet's magnetic field generating components could produce the mantle displacement.

You can see the subtle influence of the Sun on the proposed mechanism in this post.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry815114

But have a go at it, you might find a better idea than anyone else.

How much of this is your own work for you use the words "we" rather than "I" in the last section after a quote out of Wikipedia?

 

Wiki is everything that is italicized. The "we" and everything else including the drawings is mine.

 

"We are rather certain that the continents in question were once joined, so we have a rather good analog to compare other plates against."

 

I took liberties to assume that everyone but the crazy people believe the Atlantic was created when the single supercontinent Pangaea broke-up.

 

So you can see now this model covers a time period of billions of years. And is quite relevant in regards to it.

I have seen the difference between con trails and chemtrails!

 

In this case, you are definitely wrong. all you have to do is look up!

 

Contrails fade out in minutes, chemtrails persist for hours.

 

look at the sky, several times a day for the next week or so, do you not notice the sky becoming overcast as a result of some of the " persistent con trails"?

 

You have called me a moron already, I say that if you cannot see them, you are either

a, in an area that does not get sprayed

b, you are blind

c, you are ignorant

d, you are suffering from cognitive dissonance

 

I'm not going to start cherry picking videos and articles but I strongly suggest you do some research into this matter, with an open mind!

 

Posts like this really make me pessimistic about the future of mankind, these people that believe and spread these notions have been born and raised in modern societies. And this content is consumed by an ever growing number of those in the third world . . . . . . there are poisonous storm clouds on the horizon and they're not chemtrails coming from the back of airplanes.

Why do you do the exact opposite of what I ask?

 

Because you didn't do as I had asked. It starts out with me posting what is in my opening post and half of page 1, then reiterating what's in many other posts. And of course you would have follow up questions or objections that have also been ask by others and I get sucked into repeating more content.

 

I just wanted your latest framework of ideas. I don't want to look at specific examples that may or may not support your case.

 

That would be what I pointed out for you to read. With this thread at 23 pages, why would I repost what is a sizable amount of content because one person demands it.

 

 

So anything that happened in the MOR or globally 10 million years ago is irrelevant.

 

Ummm . . . . .No, do you possibly recall me posting something like this in my last post;

 

"this model showed they also match 56 boundary sequences going back 545 MY, each episode lasting several million years, that are, as the paper said, the result of the mantle's cycling and that are also well documented to have occurred globally."

 

And see my response to billiards.

 

 

You seem to want to swamp the forum with the same studies and graphs over and over again.

 

Pot calls kettle

 

 

I just skip these for they are irrelevant to what I need at this stage and that is the hypothesis in a nutshell.

 

Please see post below.

 

 

 

No you have a serious problem.

 

Ummm . . . . .No, you have broken model.

 

Hiding behind walls of text is no excuse for bad science. Make it brief and stay on point: you might get more response.

 

OK. How's this;

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry843598

 

Posted 25 December 2014 - 10:37 PM

Please can you be as brief as possible.

 

 

You must be joking?

 

 

 

Are you still needing a oscillating temperatures of the Earth's inner parts?

Have you been able to link this to the Earth's magnetic field?

 

Let's imagine I'm standing next to you and shining a bright light on a my last post.

 

 

Hi Rob, have you not read any of the last several pages of this thread? Do I have to repost what has been already argued and supported in conversations in the last three pages?

 

This thread has been down this road already. If you read the last 4 pages you may save a lot of repetition in post content. In fact, I would start at post 348 on page 18, that would bring you up to date and save a lot of time and trouble.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry815114

 

I'm not wanting you to prove anything. I just want you to describe the basic principles behind your hypothesis, the ones you have stuck with up to this stage.

 

Did you not read my last post? Hell, The last three even? Do I need to repost them?, and all the posts I referred you to? Do you know what those number at the top of the page are for?

 

 

So you are using an obvious local measurement and suggesting that the rate has some bearing to the global effect.

Surely you are not suggesting that rate is the global rate!

 

 

So you still haven't read the last several pages and the very well supported arguments I made of the Atlantic MOR?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry900283

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry891454

 

In that series of posts I made a series of observations that were clearly supported by the overwhelming evidence of the Atlantic MOR was at or near the surface of the ocean during at least two occasions, one of them at the same time that the Himalayan, Andean and other mountain ranges were forming around the world.

 

That, I think, is what would be considered global, No?

 

Then this model showed they also match 56 boundary sequences going back 545 MY, each episode lasting several million years, that are, as the paper said, the result of the mantle's cycling and that are also well documented to have occurred globally.

 

OK, one more time. I want you to take a deep breath and concentrate on this while you read it reeeeal slowly.

 

“Fifty-six, large magnitude sequence boundaries have been delineated in the Phanerozoic succession of Arctic North America. The characteristics of the boundaries indicate that they were primarily generated by tectonics. The boundaries occur with an approximate 10 million year frequency (9.8 +/- 3.1). Each boundary was generated during a tectonic episode interpreted to reflect a mantle-driven, plate tectonic reorganization and consequent changes in regional stress fields. Such episodes likely lasted for a few million years and were separated by longer intervals of relative tectonic quiescence. There are indications that the recognized tectonic episodes affected basins throughout the world.”

 

You should realize that you need to deal with those two research papers to argue these oscillations are not a global phenomena.

 

You can now back to your argument based on willful ignorance of the what is posted on this thread.

 

 

He found a paper with the word "oscillation" and "mantle" in and then completely bastardised it. This is the quality of science we are having to deal with here.

 

And I still wait for you to make even one prediction of observation using the standard model that would explain every prediction of observation this model has made on this thread. How about making just one, maybe the Atlantic MOR rising to the surface for several million years at the exact same time as those other mountain ranges were forming. That would be great! I'm sure everyone would like to see some rigor out of that tired old standard model of yours.

I am wanting to understand the mechanism of your hypothesis. I started reading that you were proposing that the Earth's Core varied in temperature and this made an expansion and this expansion, and contraction on cooling, results in the continental plates cracking open allowing infill at the mid-ocean ridges, and then on contraction subduction.

The above to my current understanding depends on a global expansion and contraction of the Mantle.

 

Whereas the original Tectonic plate movements were more a result of convection flows in the Mantle.

OK these are simple unrefined concepts.

All I want to know is which one does your idea depend on mostly?

It is possible both depend on Core heating.

 

Arc - I have had a look at the Bonatti et al, article you often refer to and there are diagrams (fig.5) clearly showing these rates are localized upwelling of solid mantle from the melt zone.

I thought your theory needed a more global expansion of the mantle.

 

Hi Rob, have you not read any of the last several pages of this thread? Do I have to repost what has been already argued and supported in conversations in the last three pages?

 

I do not believe the current standard model of mantle convection is a realistic solution to solve the almost cryptic history of this planet's surface. The reason for mantle convection being the long sought viable solution for this planet’s surface is simple, there were not any other viable alternatives.

 

http://www.researchg...ure_423_499-505

 

"A 20-Myr record of creation of oceanic lithosphere at a segment of the central Mid-Atlantic-Ridge is exposed along an uplifted sliver of lithosphere. The degree of melting of the mantle that is upwelling below the ridge, estimated from the chemistry of the exposed mantle rocks, as well as crustal thickness inferred from gravity measurements, show oscillations of ,3–4 Myr superimposed on a longer-term steady increase with time. The time lag between oscillations of mantle melting and crustal thickness indicates that the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr, but this appears to vary through time."

 

The number of predictions of observations that can be generated by this paragraph is remarkable. The 3-4 million year oscillations match the periodic movement of the N. American continent over the Yellowstone complex that lies below it, and the Pacific Plate’s periodic movement over the Hawaiian hotspot are just a few and when combined with other research papers make a very robust argument, such as in post 422 and 426 on page 22. . . . . . . please don't make me repost or, worse yet re argue the same points.

 

When I first posted the Bonatti et al research paper above I was in the middle of a rather contentious debate on a prediction about the Atlantic MOR. That paper with several others solidified the cause and effect to make the Bonatti et al observation a piece in a series of causes and effects.

 

The oscillations can be shown that they are a globally synchronized crustal movement by the Bonatti et al paper and this one below.

 

http://www.geoconven...c_Tectonics.pdf

 

Episodic Tectonics in the Phanerozoic Succession of the North American Arctic and the “10 Million Year Flood”

Ashton Embry, Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, aembry@nrcan.gc.ca

Benoit Beauchamp, University of Calgary, Calgary, bbeaucha@ucalgary.ca

Keith Dewing, Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, kdewing@nrcan.gc.ca

James Dixon, Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, jdixon@nrcan.gc.ca

 

Conclusions

“Fifty-six, large magnitude sequence boundaries have been delineated in the Phanerozoic succession of Arctic North America. The characteristics of the boundaries indicate that they were primarily generated by tectonics. The boundaries occur with an approximate 10 million year frequency (9.8 +/- 3.1). Each boundary was generated during a tectonic episode interpreted to reflect a mantle-driven, plate tectonic reorganization and consequent changes in regional stress fields. Such episodes likely lasted for a few million years and were separated by longer intervals of relative tectonic quiescence. There are indications that the recognized tectonic episodes affected basins throughout the world.”

 

“A given tectonic episode began with the initial uplift of the basin margin (start of base level fall) and ended with the collapse and marine flooding of the margin (maximum flooding surface). The sequence boundary was generated during the tectonic episode and represents the time of maximum uplift and basin ward extent of the unconformity.”

 

So those two previous research papers confirm the crust is being globally moved upwards and would suggest they are in synchronized time periods, one metric of the mantle states by 25mm a year.

 

"the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr"

 

This thread has been down this road already. If you read the last 4 pages you may save a lot of repetition in post content. In fact, I would start at post 348 on page 18, that would bring you up to date and save a lot of time and trouble.

No I didn't read the article

 

Then you are approaching this very broad and lengthy dynamic model from disadvantage.

What I was wanting from you is your understanding of the words "the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr" does that imply to you a global Earth expansion (i.e as a result of a thermal expansion period affecting the entire Earth's mantle or just some local effect at some specific locations, e.g a specific caldera?

 

Did you go to the site and read the article?

 

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/10736864_Bonatti_E._et_al._Mantle_thermal_pulses_below_the_Mid-Atlantic_Ridge_and_temporal_variations_in_the_formation_of_oceanic_lithosphere._Nature_423_499-505

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry891454

 

"A 20-Myr record of creation of oceanic lithosphere at a segment of the central Mid-Atlantic-Ridge is exposed along an uplifted sliver of lithosphere. The degree of melting of the mantle that is upwelling below the ridge, estimated from the chemistry of the exposed mantle rocks, as well as crustal thickness inferred from gravity measurements, show oscillations of,3–4 Myr superimposed on a longer-term steady increase with time. The time lag between oscillations of mantle melting and crustal thickness indicates that the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of,25 mm yr, but this appears to vary through time. Slow-spreading lithosphere seems to form through dynamic pulses of mantle upwelling and melting, leading not only to along-axis segmentation but also to across-axis structural variability. Also, the central Mid-Atlantic Ridge appears to have become steadily hotter over the past 20 Myr, possibly owing to north–south mantle flow."

 

 

"Slow-spreading lithosphere seems to form through dynamic pulses of mantle upwelling and melting"

 

I interpret this to mean they believe there is a distinct difference between the mantle upwelling and the process of melting that occurs when the material decompresses.

 

Apparently, as I understand it, the pressure is so great in the mantle that the mantle material cannot melt until it is exposed through some process to a lower pressure state and is then allowed to decompress and then melt as a result.

 

This seems to be reinforced by this statement: "The time lag between oscillations of mantle melting and crustal thickness indicates that the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of,25 mm yr,"

 

The mantle is being oscillated at regular intervals by a mechanism that to the standard model is unknown.

 

The mantle displacement mechanism in this model produces during the above mentioned oscillations mantle surface strain well beyond the material's integrity, causing spontaneous tearing and decompression melting of the surface area. There is evidence of vast layer of magma at the crust-mantle boundary.

 

http://dx.doi.org/10...099.2013.835283

Australian Journal of Earth Sciences: An International Geoscience Journal of the Geological Society of Australia

Volume 60, Issue 6-7, 2013

D. L. Anderson

"Seismology, thermodynamics and classical physics—the physics associated with the names of Fourier, Debye, Born, Gr€uneisen, Kelvin, Rayleigh, Rutherford, Ramberg and Birch—show that ambient shallow mantle under large long-lived plates is hundreds of degrees hotter than in the passive upwellings that fuel the global spreading ridge system, that potential temperatures in mantle below about 200 km generally decrease with depth and that deep mantle low shear wave-speed features are broad, sluggish and dome-like rather than narrow and mantle-plume-like. The surface boundary layer of the mantle is more voluminous and potentially hotter than regions usually considered as sources for intraplate volcanoes."

 

This would suggest there is evidence that the crust/mantle boundary contains large volumes of magma that would be at play in providing a hydraulic medium between the mantle and crust, extending the crust while simultaneously extruding into the divergent boundaries as is currently being observed. The model proposes the magma is dependent on the strain energy that is simultaneously released by the mantle during its displacement.

 

"that potential temperatures in mantle below about 200 km generally decrease with depth"

 

 

That observation runs counter to the the standard model and the generally accepted belief that temperatures are lower nearer to the surface and increase with depth. A source and its accompanying mechanisms would be needed to explain this crust-mantle boundary temperature anomaly.

 

Have you considered Moontanman's example of observed cooperation between contemporary species of African primates and canines as a reflection of the initial human-canine bonding process pre-tool?

 

I would offer the suggestion, that possibly before flint edged weapons developed, humans were long using the herding strategy on smaller game with club type weapons and spear shafts with sharpened wood tips. The herding strategy is also widely used by wolves hunting in packs where the technique is almost identical except for the designated killing zone.

 

Wolves as a team will position its members along a specific route. The prey is then chased in relay in the hopes that one of them will get a hold of, if not at least slow the animal until the others can catch up and overwhelm it in number.

 

If, as I have said earlier is true, and a few groups of wolves adapted to living as scavengers in the shadow of the flint armed humans, they would have without a doubt become familiar with the human's daily habits. They would recognize when such a hunt was in the works, this activity is already hardwired into their instincts and they would likely have gotten excited with anticipation of participating in the chase from a safe distance. Their initial wariness of humans would in later generations give way to them moving in closer, from first chasing the prey and hunters from gradually decreasing distances to finally closing in and directly driving the prey forward to the hunters that waited in ambush.

 

Those hunters would likely recognize and acknowledge the contribution of these still wild but much less threatening canines.

 

I imagine this gradual coevolution through generations would eventually bring these dogs and humans together into a single cultural existence.

It might have been old but it seems so wrong I thought I'd better comment then and there as I work my way through the thread.

Upwelling of the Mantle and the increase in the radius of the Earth are entirely different measurements.

 

The model has really started to come together in the last year. Good predictions and a nice fit to plate tectonics.

I think you should read more about it so you can get a better understanding of the mechanism and the surface movement. The "increase in radius" is not what you probably are imagining it is. The crust is gaining and dispersing gravitational potential energy to move the crust into convergent boundaries. A small noticeable increase in radius as the phenomena cycles. The movement of the Yellowstone caldera is a nice representation.

 

But check out post 426, these were cycles that made a significant enough vertical movement in the crustal margins that it left traces in sedimentary rock layers. The paper is below and describes a 554 million year record of the periodic outward and inward displacement of the earth’s crust. The paper shows that the 56 known cycle periods varied between 5 and 15 million years with the average being 10 Ma.

 

http://www.geoconven...c_Tectonics.pdf

Episodic Tectonics in the Phanerozoic Succession of the North American Arctic and the “10 Million Year Flood”

Ashton Embry, Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, aembry@nrcan.gc.ca

Benoit Beauchamp, University of Calgary, Calgary, bbeaucha@ucalgary.ca

Keith Dewing, Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, kdewing@nrcan.gc.ca

James Dixon, Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, jdixon@nrcan.gc.ca

Conclusions

“Fifty-six, large magnitude sequence boundaries have been delineated in the Phanerozoic succession of Arctic North America. The characteristics of the boundaries indicate that they were primarily generated by tectonics. The boundaries occur with an approximate 10 million year frequency (9.8 +/- 3.1). Each boundary was generated during a tectonic episode interpreted to reflect a mantle-driven, plate tectonic reorganization and consequent changes in regional stress fields. Such episodes likely lasted for a few million years and were separated by longer intervals of relative tectonic quiescence. There are indications that the recognized tectonic episodes affected basins throughout the world.”

“A given tectonic episode began with the initial uplift of the basin margin (start of base level fall) and ended with the collapse and marine flooding of the margin (maximum flooding surface). The sequence boundary was generated during the tectonic episode and represents the time of maximum uplift and basinward extent of the unconformity.”

So those two previous research papers confirm the crust is being moved upwards, one metric of the mantle states by 25mm a year.

"the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr"

Solid mantle, not melt, or magma but solid mantle material.

You've made a very valid point; however, I can't get around how much more intelligent our ancestors likely were. An intelligent species does indeed create tools and devise strategies that reflect their superiority. I think intelligent species are more likely to use the labor of other species, as a strategy, than risk injury and expend calories in pursuits other species can engage for them. It was likely less risky to steal the prey of predators injured or exhausted by their pursuits. Among competing species, wouldn't this have been the wisest strategy?

 

The development of flint edged weapons forever changed humans from scavengers to alpha predators. 6-8 hunters with razor sharp spear points would within several generations practice become efficient killers that used herding tactics to drive their prey to a killing zone, this while expending a fraction of what their ancestors would have done chasing small game and throwing rocks for what probably was a significantly lower calorie intake.

 

The flint edge tools were a time and energy saving advancement that greatly increase their calorie intake and that would likely have attracted the attention of many scavenger species including wolves, crows, badgers and the like to share in the bountiful harvest.

 

 

On a different note I found this interesting;

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

"The pointing gesture is a human-specific signal, is referential in its nature, and is a foundation building-block of human communication. Human infants acquire it weeks before the first spoken word. In 2009, a study compared the responses to a range of pointing gestures by dogs and human infants. The study showed little difference in the performance of 2-year-old children and dogs, while 3-year-old children's performance was higher. The results also showed that all subjects were able to generalize from their previous experience to respond to relatively novel pointing gestures. These findings suggest that dogs demonstrating a similar level of performance as 2-year-old children can be explained as a joint outcome of their evolutionary history as well as their socialization in a human environment.

Later studies support coevolution in that dogs can discriminate the emotional expressions of human faces, and that most people can tell from a bark whether a dog is alone, being approached by a stranger, playing, or being aggressive, and can tell from a growl how big the dog is."