Real Science Radio: Earth & Mercury's Decaying Magnetic Fields

[Stripe]

The fundamental ideas are not much in dispute – the temperature and density properties of the interior of the earth. Whatever the correct description is for what is happening, it will involve fine tuning, not wholesale abandonment of the basics.

The fundamentals are most certainly in dispute!

Your characterization of the fundamentals being "temperature and density properties" is to ignore the real fundamentals, which are the energy type and source.

When you can't even be sure what force is in action and where the energy comes from, nothing you say should be considered anything near a certainty.

Here is a certainty: there is no movement of the Earth's crust as the result of convection.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

If someone wants to prove God and disprove atheism, junk science is not the way to do it.

 

[gcthomas]

Your characterization of the fundamentals being "temperature and density properties" is to ignore the real fundamentals, which are the energy type and source.

The energy source is trivially clear: the energy of the core, mostly from primordial heat and radioactivity.

But you are wrong about the fundamentals: temperature and density are indeed key as the physical manifestation of the majority of the energy. Temp/density controls bouyancy, convection, motion, eruptions, subduction ...

You seem convinced that there is not convection caused motion: would you amuse us all by telling us what the direct observations have convinced you to hold this rare opinion?

 

[Stripe]

The energy source is trivially clear: the energy of the core, mostly from primordial heat and radioactivity.

Hot stuff makes plates move. Gotcha.

But you are wrong about the fundamentals: temperature and density are indeed key as the physical manifestation of the majority of the energy.

Assuming the truth of your arguments is no way to win a case.

You seem convinced that there is not convection caused motion: would you amuse us all by telling us what the direct observations have convinced you to hold this rare opinion?

Sure. To power plate tectonics, convection would have to be moving mass upward from great depth. However, at pressures found at relatively shallow depths, rock contracts upon melting -- thus it becomes more dense and sinks.

 

[gcthomas]

Sure. To power plate tectonics, convection would have to be moving mass upward from great depth. However, at pressures found at relatively shallow depths, rock contracts upon melting -- thus it becomes more dense and sinks.

A few misconceptions in one phrase.

The rock of the descending slab (not the mantle) gets denser - but it isn't due to melting since it takes many tens of millions of years for the great thickness of the slab to get that hot - it is due to mineral structural changes. This sinking is part of the cause of the motion of the plates - slab pull.

The mantle rock doesn't experience those mineral changes, so heating it just makes it less dense, making it positively buoyant.

With down going slab and up going mantle rock we have the convection current in place.

 

[Stripe]

A few misconceptions in one phrase.

There cannot be misconceptions of what has not been presented.

The rock of the descending slab (not the mantle) gets denser - but it isn't due to melting since it takes many tens of millions of years for the great thickness of the slab to get that hot - it is due to mineral structural changes. This sinking is part of the cause of the motion of the plates - slab pull. The mantle rock doesn't experience those mineral changes, so heating it just makes it less dense, making it positively buoyant. With down going slab and up going mantle rock we have the convection current in place.

This is not convection -- and it comes with a whole other set of problems.

How about the evolutionists decide which model they want to support so we don't have to play whack-a-mole with theories. :up:

 

[gcthomas]

So we have hot rock rising and cooler denser rock descending, in one system with mass conserved and a temperature gradient, but it is not convection?

Your assertion is duly noted. :chuckle:

YECs hate reality - it stops everyone else from realising what geniuses they think they are!

 

[Stripe]

So we have hot rock rising and cooler denser rock descending, in one system with mass conserved and a temperature gradient, but it is not convection?

Not the convection of the mantle that is also said to drive plate movement.

Like I say, the evolutionists need to decide on a mechanism instead of playing whack-a-mole.

 

[DavisBJ]

Stripe, several times in recent threads you explicitly said that your intent at TOL was to annoy evolutionists. A substantial number of your posts have clearly been made with that express goal in mind. I have stated before that I am not a bit interested in engaging in that infantile level of interaction.

I welcome your participation, but only if you can conduct yourself like someone who can respectfully discuss the ideas.

The fundamentals are most certainly in dispute!

I did overstate that, didn’t I? Revise that to say: ”The fundamentals are not in dispute among the great majority of the planetary geologists who study these things.” In addition to the religiously motivated dissenters there are usually a few real scientists with alternative ideas.

our characterization of the fundamentals being "temperature and density properties" is to ignore the real fundamentals, which are the energy type and source.

I’m all ears. Explain what alternative you prefer, and why.

Here is a certainty: there is no movement of the Earth's crust as the result of convection.

Your proof is?

… at pressures found at relatively shallow depths, rock contracts upon melting -- thus it becomes more dense and sinks.

Question 1 – Your source of information?

Question 2 – Assume what you say is correct. Tell us what would happen over a few million years of this sinking melted rock. Would it eventually result in a melted liquid rock core for the earth?

Gct said

With down going slab and up going mantle rock we have the convection current in place.

You objected:

This is not convection -- and it comes with a whole other set of problems.

Can you be a tad more specific than just alluding to some mysterious “other set of problems”?

And, when GCT challenged your claim about “This is not convection”, you wisely backed down from that and instead claimed it wasn’t what drove plate movement. Do you have any intention of actually explaining why you think that is so?

 

[Stripe]

Assume what you say is correct. Tell us what would happen over a few million years of this sinking melted rock.

It will take maybe only a few more centuries before it becomes clear that the Earth is doomed to a fast-approaching fiery death. And this all in response to an event ~4500 years ago.

Millions of years is so far off the universal time scale it is ridiculous.

Can you be a tad more specific than just alluding to some mysterious “other set of problems”?

First the evolutionists should put forward a clear theory that they are willing to defend.

You wisely backed down.

Nope.

Convection in the mantle -- one of the sources usually given for the energy to drive plate movement -- is not what GC was describing.

 

[DavisBJ]

Thanks for a respectful reply, Stripe.

It will take maybe only a few more centuries before it becomes clear that the Earth is doomed to a fast-approaching fiery death. And this all in response to an event ~4500 years ago.

Millions of years is so far off the universal time scale it is ridiculous.

I can see your razor-sharp scientific approach here. Rather than answer the scientific question I asked, you vaguely alluded to some tribal religious legend that purportedly tells of calamities past and future. I take it this is the best you have to offer, nothing actually scientific at all? Was your prior mention of melting rock sinking the totality of your scientific offering?

First the evolutionists should put forward a clear theory that they are willing to defend.

GCT’s description of convection was rather clear. It must have been clear enough to you that you said you perceived that it had (an) “other set of problems”, but now you choose to be coy and not willing to tell us what they are.

Convection in the mantle -- one of the sources usually given for the energy to drive plate movement -- is not what GC was describing.

Gct specified

So we have hot rock rising and cooler denser rock descending, in one system with mass conserved and a temperature gradient

If you think he was not speaking of convection in the mantle, then please tell us what part of the earth’s interior you think he was describing.

And next reply, if the core of your post is religious dogma rather than science, just say so up front.

 

[gcthomas]

Convection in the mantle -- one of the sources usually given for the energy to drive plate movement -- is not what GC was describing.

No. I clearly said that the heat of the core was the energy source that drove the convection.

There are, as you know, additional processes that also drive plate movement, all ultimately powered by the temperature difference between core and surface.

 

[Stripe]

You vaguely alluded to some tribal religious legend that purportedly tells of calamities past and future.

Nope.

Physical necessity.

If you're too sold out to your evolutionism to consider a scientific alternative that does not cater for your religion, you should stay away from those determined to engage in rational discourse. :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

No. I clearly said that the heat of the core was the energy source that drove the convection.

Apart from when you said that the "sinking is part of the cause of the motion of the plates."

If heat at the core is the source of all the energy for plate motion, explain clearly how the heat is converted into kinetic energy such that it drives continental crust across the mantle.

 

[DavisBJ]

Physical necessity.

Would it be too much to ask for you to describe, sans religious dogma, what this physical necessity is, and how you know?

If you're too sold out to your evolutionism to consider a scientific alternative ...

I would love to see the science backing your claim. I asked for it before, and you are the one that decided to inject fundamentalist dogma in place of a scientific answer.

 

[gcthomas]

Nope.

Physical necessity.

If you're too sold out to your evolutionism to consider a scientific alternative that does not cater for your religion, you should stay away from those determined to engage in rational discourse. :thumb:

Poe's Law in action!

Apart from when you said that the "sinking is part of the cause of the motion of the plates."

If heat at the core is the source of all the energy for plate motion, explain clearly how the heat is converted into kinetic energy such that it drives continental crust across the mantle.

You could find out for yourself, couldn't you? Just find a PC connected to the internet and ... oh. :think: Is this a parody or real?

Ok. 1. Hot mantle rock rises as it is less dense than the surrounding rock. 2. Plumes rise and spread out under lithosphere, providing a tangential force. 3. Magma is pushed into cracks, providing ridge push. 4. Cold slab pushed under more buoyant continent is denser than surroundings, so negatively buoyant, providing slab pull.

Some combination of those forces will do the job. (Walt's analysis is amateurish and uses a nonsensical model to make the maths easy for him to carry out, but he loses out on the match to reality, as is his modus operandus.)

 

[DavisBJ]

Apart from when you said that the "sinking is part of the cause of the motion of the plates."

If heat at the core is the source of all the energy for plate motion, explain clearly how the heat is converted into kinetic energy such that it drives continental crust across the mantle.

Never watched the motion in a lava lamp, or the top of a heating pan of water? Try it sometime. Elementary school kids know that if water is coming up and going down, it has to move sideways to get from the rising area to the descending.

 

[Stripe]

Would it be too much to ask for you to describe, sans religious dogma, what this physical necessity is, and how you know?

You should try reading. :thumb:

Hot mantle rock rises as it is less dense than the surrounding rock.

When rock melts at mantle-depth pressures, they become more dense. Denser material tends to sink.

Your convection idea is dead in the water.

 

[gcthomas]

You should try reading. :thumb:

When rock melts at mantle-depth pressures, they become more dense. Denser material tends to sink.

Your convection idea is dead in the water.

Why would hot mantle rising to less hot parts suddenly melt, let alone get more dense?

You are making it up, Stripe. Unless you are referring to the density changes in descending slabs, which are chemically different and coming down from cold, lower pressure regions? (Choice of making it up our plain confused. Which is it? Unless you have a reference, that is ! :up

 

[One Ugly Christian]

Do you actually understand science at all?

Wow, another "strong scientific" argument, not.