Re: Seismic waves, density and temperature.



Stuart wrote:

On Apr 7, 9:07 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Tell you what. Find out what fluids have the property
of a Bingham plastic.

You seem confused. Bingham plastic do not behave like fluids in absence
of stress. By definition, they are not fluids.

There are many materials for which the definitions are blurred.

Like solid rock? ...(being a fluid on geological time scales). Maybe
this could be extended to mean that on astronomical time scales it
behaves like a gas. What do you think Stuart?


That is the point of the Bingham rheology, and that is why
it is applied to a variety of materials.

I'm with Florian on this one. Where do we find this stuff?


Why do I have the bad impression that you know zero example of thermal
convection in a Bingham plastic like material? Tss tss...


I'm not responsible for the impressions held by idiots.

Lets start there.

I'm tired having to do your homework for you.

Lazy guy.
You claim there is thermal convection in Bingham plastic, You show me a
real life example.

Fine.

Take a can of ketchup.

(I'm with Stuart here - When it's been sitting around for a while it
does behave like solid rock.. I think this must be what Stuart
means...)


Pour it into a pot. Turn up the heat a little bit.

Mmm. And then what? Is this supposed to be your analogy for thermal
convection Stuart?
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/corpuscles.html
(...the bit where that fellow Anderson you were talking about says:-
"Mantle convection is quite different from the usual pot-on-a-stove
metaphor. "

(As if we didn't know.) Why do you persist with your nonsense
Stuart. If you're going to be the front-man, behave like one. Tell
us in terms gravitas how gravity exerts a force at a distance, for
example. Do Planets float (with negative buoyancy of course) in the
stellar medium? forcing the aether downwards into large convection
currents? Or does the Aether force the planets 'upwards' holding them
at a distance? Is the Aether layered? Stuff like that would be
interesting at least. But blood in a bottle, .. (Where's my wooden
stake and my silver hammer...)


It is how science work, at least in my field which is not fucked up like
geophysics.


You don't have a field.

(Come on Stuart, ..you can do better.) (Possibly.)


And don't get sore at me because Geophysics has a large literature
regarding
both experimental and theoretical studies of creep in crystalline
rocks

The 'Physics' bit is not serving the 'geo' bit very well though, is
it? ...when it can disregard something as fundamental as the global
scale inscription of geological structure symmetrical with the Earth's
spin over geological time. And insists a flat-bottomed pan is the
way to go instead of a round Earth. Have the spatial/ volumetric
conundrums of convection in a round Earth never occurred to you?

Can we have an advance on your admission that you don't have a clue
about how subduction gets going? Surely you don't mean that somehow
y9ou have to shake the Earth and turn the heat up? What's your
'convectional rationale' for your tomato ketchup in a pan model?


while EE has no theory, no experiments, and to boot no unambiguous
measurements of expansion of the Earth or its moon for that matter.

An observation that the earth is round round doesn't need a theory.
It's an observable fact. (Unless you keep your eyes below the horizon
or your head in the sand.) Likewise the fact that it has got
bigger over time is an observable geological fact - unless you're so
myopic or your interests in gifts that pay the rent outweigh you
observational responsibilities as a scientist.

Why would you need an experiment to simulate an observation that the
Earth is round. Experiments are for theories, not facts. Can't you
tell the difference?
.

Loading