Stuart wrote:
On Sep 3, 4:32 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:00 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
On Sep 2, 6:29 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Come on Stuart, ,..this won't do. You invited us into the hall of
mirrors, .."The wonderful world of rigid-body kinematics." morphing
off "the wonderful world of Gravity Tectonics", mediated (as we are
invited to believe) by temperature, subduction and whatnot. (The
'whatnot' being one helluvalot of lateral superfluity.) Before we
embark on your excellent exposition (below) you need to make your
position clear as to the aforementioned, by answering the question
that was put to you before your reply hereunder,.. which was:-
-----------------------------------------
".. Is the rug getting pulled off the table by the
loose end as it 'falls'? Or is it getting a free ride on the conveyor
belt? (and what conveyor belt?)http://tinyurl.com/33oxhv
Subduction is a major driver of the "conveyor belt".
-------------------------------------------
...the 'rug' being the subducting slab, and the 'conveyor bel't
being probably your conception of the asthenosphere..
By not answering in the other thread you did rather give the
impression you were trying to dodge. John Harshman could possibly
reiterate his view regarding UNDERPLATING as the probable mechanism
for ridge accretion/ creation. If you could enlarge on *****
intrusion, then we'd have the essence of difference in the consensus
of this debate spelt out.
.
John didn't use the term "underplating". You did. Perhaps you should
spend more time
remembering the things you said, that way you won't confuse them with
other
things people said.
I do remember.
He said:-" " There is only one mechanism I can imagine for plate
expansion here, and that's accretion from below. As the plate cools,
more mantle sticks to it, asthenosphere altering to lithosphere at
greater depth."
I helped him with a word he could have used:- 'underplating'.
The definition goes something like:-"The second process is the
tectonic underplating of oceanic crust .... In this process, the
continental crust grows from below as oceanic crust is welded to the
base .... "
Nobody here needs your help Don.
Evidently you just did.
And underplating is rarely used to describe lithospheric growth.
More is very much the pity. It's the way that the Earth does it.
Which was why as I understood it, John was fishing for the ter. He
was ceretainly describing it.
Again, a little bit of knowledge is kryptonite in your hands.
You want to see what I got in my undies? Is that it?
Now, do *You* remember what you're about? Can you clarify what you
mean when you say "Subduction is a major driver of the "conveyor
belt". "
First of all I don't use the term "Conveyor Belt". Its a tortured
metaphor.
I have said that subduction provides the lion's share of buoynacy that
drives mantle convection.
Umm, ...please, .."Negative buoyancy". (The Earth sucks)
If you want to talk to me, you use my terminology. You do not have
license to inject your imprecise terminology into concepts that
I have described well. If you wish to argue with yourself, thats fine.
Well, we are waiting for you to clarify your terminology, and what is
an untortured metaphor.
It rather smacks of your definition of plate collision as
"plates being "brought together" Do you have anything of substance to
add?
That was how I described continents being brought together.
Yeah, we know, .. ( And Adam KNEW Eve...) (***** me)!) (That's
French by the way for "I'm looking for a text-message pal")
John was referring to the fact that as the lithosphere cools, it
thickens; that is more
of the upper mantle becomes lithosphere.
How do you suppose ice
thickens over
a lake during winter? The process here isn't exactly analogous but
good enough
for the purposes of this discussion.
Is it? Oh dear! Might be good enough for goats and sundry other
furries, but surely you can do better.
No need. If you're unable to understand this, you're hopeless.
(Do you smoke, by any chance?)
No. But I wonder what you're smoking.
The dueling scientist claptarp is for wankers who don't have anything
of substance to add.
I've given you what the overall consensus is.
I know what the overall consensus is, Stuart.
No you don't. You have repeatedly demonstrated that either
you don't know what the consensus is or you subsititute
your own strawman version of that consensus.
All I want to know is how grown men can describe convection as
including such concepts as brittle failure , phase change, and
dragging half a world of rubble down subduction zones. I know you
get them at it in department stores, trying to con us by sticking a
fan in the oven and calling it convection, but we expect better from
the science community.
But it's not the
overall consensus I'm taking issue with here. I know it's stupid.
It's you I'm dealing with, and it's up to you to show us (hopefully)
you're not that stupid. But if you really want to talk about "ice on
lakes" or its metaphorical equivalent as being the driver for plate
tectonics then you've certainly got us guessing...
Only a bumbling incompetent would think my discussion of the
accumulation of ice
on a lake had anything to do with driving forces of plate tectonics.
So why did you raise it? To try to clarify something?
That was to only demonstrate how the lithosphere may grow in thickness
as it cools. Thats it. Nothing else.
A lot of things get thicker as they get older (not mentioning any
names)
Even though I explained that, and made perfectly clear what I was
describing and its relevance to lithospheric growth, you still felt
the need to make believe I was refering to something us.
The lithosphere (though I'm not big on the term) grows in the
direction of the ridge Stuart. Brittleness is your nemesis.
You need serious help Don. I hope you get it.
Stuart
Come on, ...all these are big posts you're making, they're saying
nothing to the point. Neither do we want to get involved in
terminological jousting, or your part in it. Spades is spades. All
we want to know is how you conceive of this falling slab pulling the
ocean floor down subduction zones - due to coldness, gravity or
otherwise.
This slab used to BE the ocean floor. Not only is it riddled with
fractures because of what happened to it at the ridges, but here it is
going down the subduction zone and getting double trouble for its
money. Earthquakes, breaking it up for millions of years. ... It
can't *BE* any thing more than a pile of dross. If it was a chain it
would be no more than broken links. What we're asking you is how it
can pull *ANYTHING* as it falls (because of gravity) (because it's
cold) down a subduction zone, much less pull half a world of ocean
floor that is itself still mostly just rubble and and gravel from the
treatment it received back when it was a ridge. Just look at any bit
of it, and how broken it all is - all the remnant ridge fractures and
remnant transform fault fractures.
So, OK you're dodging the "tortured metaphor of the conveyor belt".
http://tinyurl.com/2bfdx5
But how can there be anything else? How does this cartload of slack
falling down a subduction zone (because it's dense) (because its
cold ) pull the rubble that is the ocean floor? Because at face
value it's positively Loony. Tell us it's not. Tell us convection
*MEANS* something in the real world of geology. Come on, ..you take
pride in being responsible for developing this rubbish. Justify
yourself.
You must, surely have given this question of how all this broken-up
ocean floor actually behaves in a 'convective' manner, that there is
more to it than just 'heat-and-gravity' 'taylor numbers' and .
Fourier's Law and buoyancy, , thermal diffusivity, kinematic
viscosity, thermal expansion coefficients, and crit. Ra's and thermal
boundary layers, ..adiabatic temperature gradients, .. (and *****,
we're not even a quarter way down the page - but I think you get what
I mean..)
Geological reality in other words. Earthquakes. Breaking up the
crust, ..making it rubble. impossible to pull anything. All real
seismic tomography shows layered structure parallel to the Earth's
shells. Only unreal simulations with numbers "plugged in" show the
porridge-in a pot 'verticality'.
So tell us. How do subducting slabs pull the ocean floors?
.
