gentleman-farmer

Swansont gf) You formulated that quote out of context - when it is quoted in good order it reads quite differently :: This is the proper order Mr Skeptic gf gf) As you can see the reference to radioactive decay from volcanos and lava flows clearly relates to Mr Skeptic's heat generated by nuclear decay at the core of the earth. If you want to support Mr Skeptic's assertions - I sure would like to see it gf /

Swansont gf) The Bald assertion was advanced by Mr Skeptic who stated that the heat within the earth originated at the core (which is primally iron) - if you are willing to support that assertion - I'd be glad to see it That there are some small quantities of active material in lava - does not relate to Mr Skeptic's assertion For your convenience I've copied a short description As you can see the process does not relate to active processes within the earth as proposed by Mr Skeptic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93Ar_dating gf

Mr Skeptic gf) That is precisely what's wrong with the physics in geophysics - the core is principly iron and couldn't support nuclear decay if it wanted to Beyond that - there is no evidence of radioactive decay from any volcano, any lava flow, hot springs, or any other manifestation. It is all say-so and exceeds even the realm of speculation gf

Sisyphus gf) Convection is the flow of heat - and cannot be related to the flow of magma. When there is a vast amount of heat - materials will boil (go to the gaseous stage) but that is very local - and in volcanoes would by pyroclastic gf /

D H gf ) There is nothing hidden in my intent, or in the manner I phrased the subject line :: Examining the "physics" in geophysics. I intend to challenge the tenets You may have made the task a bit easier :: by example you wrote D H gf) That is exactly the point :: "well-observed," "well-observed," "well-observed!" Science is not about "well-observed!" It is about physical principles and the mathematical formulations that define and support those principles Still I'll answer (in part) your three questions. But it can only be done (in part) because we have to set magma intrusions (as the driving force) aside and introduce a force that can be quantified. I intend to do that - but it's premature at this point 1.) My answer is that magma intrusions are incapable of exerting a lateral force. 2.) Magma has already gone through the only stage during which a force exists. That is the formation stage. 3.) When the ridge is open nothing prevents the intruding magma from just spilling harmlessly out on the ocean floor 4.) It is recognized by Cornell University (see noted 1) that magma does not open the ridge - the ridge must be open first - in order for magma to intrude (see quote below - the underlining is mine) / / Noted 1. SOURCE :: D. L. Turcotte, "MAGMA MIGRATION," Department of Geological Services, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 14853. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146%Fannurev.ea.10.050182.002145

swansont gf) I disagree with your analysis. The surface of the earth is 196,940,400 square miles - (and the plates cover the entire surface) how far do you figure on pushing this cooling mass of magma? Better yet - you have to provide the proof that this magma never cools otherwise it would clog the system - and stop functioning as a conveyor belt. How too does it function for part of eternity - at least for billions of years? Also the source(s) of this magma must itself be sufficient to provide hot cover for 196,940,400 square miles - and it has to let seismic waves pass through it - and it has to let the shock waves of earthquake pass through it. gf /

Let me restate the original premise. The geophysical claim is that magma propels the plates by what is said to be conveyor belts. I am stating (that is not possible) and violates the laws of physics as magma has exhausted all opportunity to perform work on initial formation. Any movement beyond the source must be the result of extrusion by newly formed material. Hence conveyor belts do not possess a motive force to maintain the system Something else - way beyond conveyor belts is at work here gf /

I'm a new member - originally from Michigan and now in the land of hurricanes and alligators with my wife of many years, and our two horses. One's an Arab and the other is a dual registered Paint and Missouri Fox-trotter who thinks he's an Indian pony. One might suggest that the title I've selected Examining the "physics" in geophysics belongs in another section - but it's the physics that I want to discuss - not the "geo." An article appeared on CNN.com not long ago that discusses the issue, stating :: http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/25/u-s-students-fall-behind-international-counterparts-in-math-science-analysis-says/ Here (in part is why) :: One of the major tenets advanced by geophysics is that flowing magma propels the plates and causes oceanic plate separation at the mid-ocean ridges. But magma (by definition - being molten, fully expanded - having gone through phase change) has no means, in itself, to move an inch. It is incapable of performing work (force through a distance), except in the formation stage when it is expanding and going through phase change. Magma, by all definition, is a dead by-product of the heat that formed it. Our young are entering the stages of advanced education with the notion of magma propelling plates firmly set in their minds. One might ask further -how it is that the physical interlocks that exist at plate boundaries (and the friction from movement) - never enter the equation? Comments are welcome gf /