Re: What is this convection cell nonsense

On Aug 10, 6:29 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 8, 12:12 am, don findlay <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> Quadibloc wrote:
But the Earth doesn't need a driving force to have it rotate, ..does
it?

Its called conservation of angular momentum.>And (though I don't know) the jury says it used to rotate faster

Its called torque. The tidal forces of the moon exerted a torque
on the earth. Angular momentum, although conserved, was transfered by
torque to the moon.

That driving force is simply the fact that the Earth's core has not
yet reached thermal equilibrium with the surface.

So what about all those little heat
quanta called radioactive elements that are tied up in minerals called
rock?http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/corpuscles.html

Radioactive elements are not heat quanta. There are no "heat
corpusules." Once the radioactive atom decays, it releases energy into
the surrounding material.> ..What are you saying here? ..that all those heat 'corpuscles' will go
back down once they lose their heat, ..to get heated up again?

Its pieces of rock, in solid and sometime liquid form, that go
back down. They absorb energy by heat conduction.

While I cannot agree with the claim that the orthodox theory ofplate> tectonicsis presenting "nonsense" by deducing convection cells, for
all I know, a differential rotation of the liquid magma may be one of
the *effects* produced by their existence.

Yes, ..but the point is, you just cannot ad-hoc the bit about
including the Earth's rotation because of the Atlantic.

You can't ad-hoc the bit about expanding earth just because you
rheologically challenged.
There is no unique decomposition of motion for the flow of a
fluid. What he is probably saying is that the convective cell motion,
together with the earths rotation, could probably be mathematically
decomposed to include a large "differential rotation" component.
Furthermore, there is no unque "reference" from which the motion
of a fluid HAS to be analyzed. If done properly, all reference points
should wind up providing identical conclusions. Reference points and
basis vectors are chosen for their mathematical convenience, not
because one is better than the other.
The fundamental physics of fluids is intrinsically acentric. The
mathematics ends up not being completely unique. Your talk about
"improper reference points" and "differential rotation" ducks the
important issue. Like, what parts of physics and chemistry ARE your
willing to accept. If you don't like conservation of matter and you
don't like Archimedes Law of Displacement, what rules of the physical
universe do you like?

By definitionPlate Tectonics' 'convection' has *radial* symmetry. The Earth has
*axial* symmetry.

Convection cells by their very nature can not be 100% radial in
symmetry. For example, the combination of earth's rotation and up-down
convection AUTOMATICALLY induces a helical motion on the material as
seen in any inertial frame. As another example, the fact that
convection cells have finite width AUTOMATICALLY makes horizontal
motion mathematically necessary. Though a part of plate tectonic
theory, the existence of horizontal motion is not ad hoc. What dope
are you on?

When you grow up an draw the simple correlation between planetary
shape and crustal motion under a common mechanism,specifically
differential rotation ,then you might develop the wonderful trait
known as common sense.

Be my guest,stick with your silly convection cells for crustal motion
but do not forget that it is useless for explaining why the shape of
the planet is not a perfect sphere.As the merit system for discovery
does not exist,I have presented how to work the largest planetary
features into a working principle governed by the dynamics of a motlen/
flexible interior.As the individual who has proposed it,I have no time
for pretensious idiots such as yourself who I would not care if they
ever considered differential rotation even though it is observed in
all rotating celestial objects which are not in a solid state,the
Earth being no exception.

Of course I have seen many like you come and go but ultimately you are
a 'convection cell' guy and I am happy to see you believe in that
nonsense.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Geological doctorates
    ... >> Earth mechanism for crustal motion as long as the shape of the planet ... >> fractured crust contain the enormous mantle in convection cells models ... >> on the mantle and allowing the differential rotation bands to act on ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Plates and Equatorial bulge use same mechanism
    ... the motion of Io an erratic motion never broached the attributes of ... Energy is not produced on any planet indeed NOR is energy produces by the ... differential rotation as a common feature in Equatorial bulge and plate ... debacle.I envy the geologists in that era just like the astronomers ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Get the geological momentum going
    ... The technical argument is that the Equatorial bulge is explained one ... way and the motion of component plates explained another,sub-crustal ... bulge feature and facilitates a more satisfactory mechanism for crustal ... The indignity of being told what differential rotation does and does ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Get the geological momentum going
    ... >> crustal tectonic motion explained by another means (convection ... >> cells).It is easy to work with differential rotation on both features ... the 'premise' is that the continents have broken apart. ... BTW - As for orbital motion and 'proof',the Equinox alignment as the ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: A better working principle
    ... It casts the same doubt on your idea that differential rotation has any ... there's no evidence that it happens within the Earth. ... 'convection cells' are so conceptually weak as a proposed mechanism ... rotational dynamics against a background of a ridiculous expanding ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
Loading