Examining the "physics" in geophysics

[gentleman-farmer]

insane_alien

i suggest you look up convection

 

gf) Good idea - you should have done that - convection relates to heat transfer - not material transfers (at least in this Universe)

 

As it relates to this thread - magma can exert a force during expansion and phase change. Beyond that magma is dead as a prime mover. And adding heat will not change the physics - all it'll do is cause the magma to go to the next phase - vaporization.

 

The earth sciences require a system of forces that are verifiably uniform world wide, that are unchanging through the ages, that are based on the principles of physics that we know to exist - and can be quantified mathematically.

 

This system of forces must account for not only the movement of the tectonic plates, but for earthquake and mountain building, for the observed rise and fall of land masses. It must account for the existence of volcanoes, and hot springs, and the huge deposits of lava as found in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho in the United States known as the Columbia Plateau and the lava floods of India, known as the Deccan Traps or those in the Pacific Ocean north of the Solomon Islands called the Ontong Java Plateau

 

It is insufficient to base science on "well-observed fact" as D H proposed in the 6 th post of this thread. If we accept that notion some might be pre-disposed to accept the Ptolemaic geo-centric view of the universe - for what is more obvious than the sun crossing the sky? (& please swansont - don't quote that out of context - context matters)

 

Science (as does physics) relates to physical principle and mathematical verifications. I'm going to open a new thread soon, Examining the "physics" in geophysics (mountain building). A new thread will be necessary because the arguments against current (mountain building theory) follow the path (of the dissipation of compressive forces (stresses) though shear)

 

gf

[D H]

As it relates to this thread - magma can exert a force during expansion and phase change. Beyond that magma is dead as a prime mover. And adding heat will not change the physics - all it'll do is cause the magma to go to the next phase - vaporization.

Three sentences, each one of which is false. Nice going. You are still assuming that magma is completely molten. That simple is not true. You are still ignoring buoyancy, and that can be exert quite a large force. Finally, the thing that causes magma to become magma (partially molten rock) at the mid-oceanic ridges is not addition of heat. It results from the rock that will become magma rising and hence reducing in pressure. The rising rock carries some of the heat from the deep with it. When the rock mass rises high enough, the combination of reduced pressure and heat carried by the rock mass from the deeps causes the rock to begin to undergo a partial melt. This makes the rock even more buoyant, which makes it rise and melt even more. Even by the time the mass reaches the surface it is still only partially molten.

 

 

The earth sciences require a system of forces that are verifiably uniform world wide, that are unchanging through the ages, that are based on the principles of physics that we know to exist - and can be quantified mathematically.

 

This system of forces must account for not only the movement of the tectonic plates, but for earthquake and mountain building, for the observed rise and fall of land masses. It must account for the existence of volcanoes, and hot springs, and the huge deposits of lava as found in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho in the United States known as the Columbia Plateau and the lava floods of India, known as the Deccan Traps or those in the Pacific Ocean north of the Solomon Islands called the Ontong Java Plateau

That is exactly what geophysicists are trying to do. The explanation is not yet complete; that is why research can still be done in this field. (There is no field of science where the explanation is complete.) They are using the laws of physics.

 

In comparison, you have offered nothing to explain these phenomena. I have challenged you multiple times to do so.

 

You are taking what appears to be the standard crackpot approach to science. Crackpots try to show that the existing science is incorrect and then later (sometimes much later) introduce an alternative explanation. The attempts to disprove the existing science are typically full of fallacies (you get full marks here). The hidden agenda doesn't come out until much later (full marks again; you have yet to show your hidden agenda).

 

Now, even if the crackpot is successful in stage 1, that does not mean that the alternate hypothesis is true. That alternate hypothesis has to undergo scientific scrutiny. Since you have not yet shown your alternate hypothesis I don't have anything to say about it.

 

 

It is insufficient to base science on "well-observed fact" as D H proposed in the 6 th post of this thread.

 

Hmm. Let's see exactly what I said in post #6.

I don't know what your hidden agenda is here. Don't keep it hidden: Why don't you just come out with it? How do you explain

1. The well-observed fact that there is a 60,000 mile long series of mid-oceanic ridges that girdle the globe.
   
2. The well-observed fact that plates are moving apart from one another along these mid-oceanic ridges.
   
3. The well-observed extrusion of magma at several sites along the mid-oceanic ridge.
   

Does that look like I was proposing that science only be based on well-observed fact? I proposed nothing of the sort. What I did do was to ask you to explain those facts. I'm still waiting ...

 

Science is a lot more than armchair philosophizing. It is nice but not essential to have a scientific theory have some theoretical basis. There is such a thing as an empirical science, a science based largely on observation. On the other hand, a scientific theory that does not comport with reality is a false theory no matter how pretty the theory is and no matter how good it looks from an armchair philosopher's perspective.

 

Geophysics, BTW, is not one of those empirical sciences. Geology has moved from being an empirical science to one with a deeper theoretical basis thanks to geophysics.

[gentleman-farmer]

D H

You are still assuming that magma is completely molten. That simple is not true.

 

gf) Sorry D H - you have no credibility - I listed a page earlier that gave temperature ranges and viscosity values for magma (see post 23) - if you chose to ignore the data posted and then claim some superior knowledge - that is your choice

 

Here is that reference again - see table therein

 

http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/volcan&magma.htm

 

BTW regional references are un-professional

 

gf

[insane_alien]

how many times do we need to say it, the mantle is not magma.

 

and you're the one ignoring facts.

[Moontanman]

He doesn't care anything about the facts IA, no man is as blind as he who will not see....

[insane_alien]

He doesn't care anything about the facts IA, no man is as blind as he who will not see....

 

yes, i know he doesn't care. but its not going to stop me attempting to make him care. exercises in futility can be good for the soul.

[gentleman-farmer]

insane_alien

how many times do we need to say it, the mantle is not magma.

 

gf) I thought you were looking up convection - or have you forgotten

 

As for the mantle not being hot magma - you'll have to look elsewhere for that too - because I never said it was

 

You might check with yourself first, then D H , moontanman, and Mr Skeptic

 

insane_ alien forgot he stated

not to mention we can measure it (magma) moving which means the situation is moot, it exherts viscous drag on the crust or physics doesn't exist.

 

gf) Other than that I guess you're on your own - my view is expressed - in this picture from post #40 and I made this comment --

 

NOTICE - I said does not

The permanence (and extent) of these layers stand in testimony that magma does not intrude to move surface plates

 

gf) I would hope that the next time you use this tactic how many times do we need to say it you'd be a lot better informed.

/

/

 

gf

/

[insane_alien]

i know perfectly well what convection is, far more than you seem to. especially as i have to deal with it on a day to day basis in my job.

 

the mantle circulates, there are plumes and sinks. not only are these predicted, but they have been mesured.

 

so the mantle is moving, as it's moving, it exherts drag. (is it just me or is there a bit of deja vu around here)

 

just because there are different layers doesn't mean that there isn't any movement.

 

espetially as the crust is a solid.(hmm, more deja vu)

 

give it up gm, you're talking crap and you know it. nobody can be this dumb.

[gentleman-farmer]

insane_alien says

i know perfectly well what convection is

 

gf ) Okay here is a quote from insane_alien himself that clearly shows that he thinks convection is the movement of material (rather than heat transfer as it actually is)

viscous friction will drag the oil around with it with little disruption to the interface. we know the mantle undergoes convection (we've measured it) so there is movement of the mantle. which means there will be viscous drag forces on the tectonic plates. MASSIVE viscous drag forces. easily enough to overcome the mechanical strength of the rock.

 

gf) Sure would be interesting to see how the convection in the mantle was measured

 

insane_alien - until you show proof of that measurement I'm gonna figure you're making it up

 

gf)

[Moontanman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_(geology)

 

The convection of the Earth's mantle is a chaotic process (in the sense of fluid dynamics), which is thought to be an integral part of the motion of plates. Plate motion should not be confused with the older term continental drift which applies purely to the movement of the crustal components of the continents. The movements of the lithosphere and the underlying mantle are coupled since descending lithosphere is an essential component of convection in the mantle. The observed continental drift is a complicated relationship between the forces causing oceanic lithosphere to sink and the movements within Earth's mantle.

 

The truth is out there, just google it...

[insane_alien]

insane_alien says

 

gf ) Okay here is a quote from insane_alien himself that clearly shows that he thinks convection is the movement of material (rather than heat transfer as it actually is)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection

 

its heat transfer yes, but it also involves the movement of a fluid.

 

gf) Sure would be interesting to see how the convection in the mantle was measured

 

insane_alien - until you show proof of that measurement I'm gonna figure you're making it up

 

gf)

 

as for measurement, of course no direct observation can be made as we cannot get down to the mantle, but the observations of hot-spot vulcanism(hawaii is the best example of this) and seismic data as well as simple physical principles on the behavious of fluids when there is a temperature gradient.

[gentleman-farmer]

insane_alien

we know the mantle undergoes convection (we've measured it)

 

gf) Give us proof - you are quick to say

you're the one ignoring facts

 

Okay that is one fact I want to see

 

moontanman

The convection of the Earth's mantle is a chaotic process

 

gf) The chaotic part's right - and I'd hope you'd not give thought to the plates moving in any regular manner with chaotic processes in control.

 

The earth sciences require a system of forces that are verifiably uniform world wide, that are unchanging through the ages, that are based on the principles of physics that we know to exist - and can be quantified mathematically.

 

This system of forces must account for not only the movement of the tectonic plates, but for earthquake and mountain building, for the observed rise and fall of land masses. It must account for the existence of volcanoes, and hot springs, and the huge deposits of lava as found in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho in the United States known as the Columbia Plateau and the lava floods of India, known as the Deccan Traps or those in the Pacific Ocean north of the Solomon Islands called the Ontong Java Plateau

 

It is insufficient to base science on "well-observed fact" as D H proposed in the 6 th post of this thread. If we accept that notion some might be pre-disposed to accept the Ptolemaic geo-centric view of the universe - for what is more obvious than the sun crossing the sky? (& please swansont - don't quote that out of context - context matters)

 

Science (as does physics) relates to physical principle and mathematical verifications. I'm going to open a new thread soon, Examining the "physics" in geophysics (mountain building). A new thread will be necessary because the arguments against current (mountain building theory) follow the path (of the dissipation of compressive forces (stresses) though shear)

 

 

gf

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This resource may be useful:

 

http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/understanding_convection_currents

 

The hot radiator warms the air that is closest to the radiator. The warm air expands, becomes less dense and rises to the top of the room. When the air reaches the top of the room it is pushed sideways towards the far wall by the more recently warmed air rising from the radiator below. In this way warm air moves to the other side of the room. Once on the other side of the room the air drops down both because it has cooled a little and because the air behind it continues to push on it. The air then continues to circulate back to the radiator and repeat the process.

 

We can see how convection currents cause a flow of fluid from this example.

 

Also, a simple video demonstrating the flow of water due to convection currents:

 

7xWWowXtuvA

 

Underneath the tank on the left is hot water. Underneath on the right is a bowl of ice. The temperature of the hot water causes a convection current in the dye.

 

Convection is considered a flow of heat because heat does flow -- by means of the flow of the heated fluid. The hot fluid rises.

[Moontanman]

gf) The chaotic part's right - and I'd hope you'd not give thought to the plates moving in any regular manner with chaotic processes in control.

 

gf

 

Who says the movement is regular?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

gf) The chaotic part's right - and I'd hope you'd not give thought to the plates moving in any regular manner with chaotic processes in control.

 

Chaotic processes can easily result in predictable long-term outcomes. See, for example, weather and climate; weather is somewhat chaotic, but the long-term climate is not.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11641-climate-myths-chaotic-systems-are-not-predictable-.html

 

Similarly, while we cannot predict the weather in a particular place and on a particular day in 100 years time, we can be sure that on average it will be far warmer if greenhouse gases continue to rise.

 

While weather and to some extent climate are chaotic systems, that does not mean that either are entirely unpredictable, as this demonstration neatly illustrates.

[D H]

Sorry D H - you have no credibility - I listed a page earlier that gave temperature ranges and viscosity values for magma (see post 23) - if you chose to ignore the data posted and then claim some superior knowledge - that is your choice

 

Here is that reference again - see table therein

 

http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/volcan&magma.htm

The only one who is ignoring claims is you. Let's see what that site says (emphasis in italics mine)

Origin of Basaltic Magma

Much evidence suggests that Basaltic magmas result from

dry partial melting

of mantle.

• Basalts make up most of oceanic crust and only mantle underlies the crust.
  
  
• Basalts contain minerals like olivine, pyroxene and plagioclase, none of which contain water.
  
  
• Basalts erupt non-explosively, indicating a low gas content and therefore low water content.

The Mantle is made of garnet peridotite (a rock made up of olivine, pyroxene, and garnet) -- evidence comes from pieces brought up by erupting volcanoes. In the laboratory we can determine the melting behavior of garnet peridotite.

 

Under normal conditions the temperature in the Earth, shown by the geothermal gradient, is lower than the beginning of melting of the mantle. Thus, in order for the mantle to melt there has to be a mechanism to raise the geothermal gradient.

One such mechanism is convection, wherein hot mantle material rises to lower pressure or depth, carrying its heat with it. This causes the local geothermal gradient to rise, and if the new geothermal gradient becomes higher than the initial melting temperature at any pressure, then a partial melt will form. Liquid from this partial melt can be separated from the remaining crystals because, in general, liquids have a lower density than solids. Basaltic magmas appear to originate in this way. This is sometimes referred to as decompression melting.

 

From that site, here is a graphic that depicts the process described above:

 

The only person who who lacks credibility here is you. You have used fallacies gallore and you have ignored evidence. You have repeatedly ignored my challenge to you asking you to explain the accumulated evidence behind plate tectonics.

[gentleman-farmer]

There is one force system (based on the principles of physics that can be quantified mathematically) that addresses all the following issues - I will identify that system when appropriate

 

The system of forces must account for not only the movement of the tectonic plates, but for earthquake and mountain building, and the observed rise and fall of land masses. It must account for the existence of volcanoes, and hot springs, and the huge deposits of lava known as the Columbia Plateau - the Deccan Traps - and the Ontong Java Plateau

 

It cannot use the collision of plates in the process of mountain building - or separation of oceanic plates by thermal means at mid-ocean ridges. It cannot claim validity of the process of subduction - as each of those processes violate physical law and are invalid as a science

 

gf

/

[Moontanman]

There is one force system (based on the principles of physics that can be quantified mathematically) that addresses all the following issues - I will identify that system when appropriate

 

The system of forces must account for not only the movement of the tectonic plates, but for earthquake and mountain building, and the observed rise and fall of land masses. It must account for the existence of volcanoes, and hot springs, and the huge deposits of lava known as the Columbia Plateau - the Deccan Traps - and the Ontong Java Plateau

 

It cannot use the collision of plates in the process of mountain building - or separation of oceanic plates by thermal means at mid-ocean ridges. It cannot claim validity of the process of subduction - as each of those processes violate physical law and are invalid as a science

 

gf

/

 

You need to pony up some evidence of this, so far you fail on everything.

[gentleman-farmer]

There is one force system (based on the principles of physics that can be quantified mathematically) that accounts for not only the movement of the tectonic plates, but earthquake and mountain building, and the observed rise and fall of land masses. It accounts for the existence of volcanoes, and hot springs, and the huge lava deposits that are known to exist

 

I discovered (and published) the details of the system in 1998 and have coined the term The RB-Effect to describe it. The RB-Effect (or Rotational Bending) is derived from a term used in the metals industry: it describes an object that is subjected to bending while in simultaneous rotational motion. Typical examples can be made of rotisserie spits; another with engine crankshafts that experience bending from piston loading during rotation.

 

It has direct application in the earth sciences. I will give greater details after we discuss mountain building. All readers should know that the RB-Effect has undergone close scrutiny and has been improved upon over the years. The mathematics are very complex and required the use of a computer program called Mathematica I worked with a professor in the math department of a major university - they purchased the program and solved the many math problems we encountered

 

Being as it's been studied and developed further over the past eleven years or since publication - I would hope that readers here would concentrate on learning and not be adversarial. Frankly I will ignore all adversarial responses as many very talented people have been involved in this

 

thank you

 

gf

/

[DJBruce]

Ok, so after doing a little research I believe I might have found your publication of your ideas. With all you have stated in this thread, I am leaning to the fact that you are James Bowles author of the 1998 book entitled The Gods, Gemini, and the Great Pyramids.

 

A further explanation of your ideas appears to be found at:

 

Survive 2012: Crustal Poleshifts

Helium (Beware this site has a lot of ads)

[D H]

Like I said. Crackpot.