arc

I can't count how many times I have heard a wife describe her husband's boat as; "a hole in the water that you throw money into."

Bold mine You have disproved your own argument; Did you ever have the thought when watching a show like the original Star Trek, and think to yourself? “You know it’s funny, no matter where they’ve gone in the universe, every advanced alien civilization they meet speaks English.” Well, we know without even having to do any statistical analysis that this would not occur even once in a million encounters with an unknown advanced alien civilization. Do you think mathematics would suffer the same fate? Do you think their preliminary and advanced mathematics would have differed greatly from ours? They would not because they are derived by a system of logical deduction that would be an unavoidable requirement to allow any civilization to advance to the level of interstellar travel. This means of course mathematics is intrinsic to the universe and is revealed though logic based systematic discovery. You would actually need to prove they experience a different physical reality than we do to claim they would not discover similar mathematical concepts to ours.

I get a little nostalgic from the most oppositional of responses in this thread. They sound eerily similar to my dad's sentiments growing up. He always had a derisive comment about those damned [fill in denomination here] when any an opportunity presented itself. We were a religion free household. We only had National Geographics magazines on the coffee table. While the NG television specials, along with PBS's nova, and any other scientific related subjects, were always watched with enthusiasm. This mixture of religious intolerance and science media manifested into me being a little science/nazi bully in school. Picking on religious kids when they might exercise their free speech. When you have such a superior weapon and put it in the hands of a bigoted 11 year old, it's not a pretty sight. Would SFN resemble this years from now, growing our own little next generation of intolerant bullies. SFN must lead by example, a stern yet tolerant enough venue to allow individuals on the religious side to put their best argument forward. We have nothing to lose and they get to see a real intellectual process of investigation and dismissal of their claims. Everyone wins. I have little interest in getting involved in these threads though, sort of a bad, been there - done that in Jr. High School feelings of guilt thing. Although, I did once comment here on one individual's opinion that a religious person could not do good science, of which of course I objected to. BTW, I have become, despite my dad's best efforts, a very accepting person towards religious people. I find in almost all of them the kind of people that make the nicest neighbors and citizens. I even will give them the time when they come to my door. Although they usually leave on their own accord when they find out that all I want to talk about is geology.

I am sorry if I made a mistake about your edit time, my apologies. I myself like to venture out onto the thin ice, it's exhilarating. Actually though the ice is the same thickness for all of us, it's just the weight of my ignorance that makes me so afraid of falling through. That's why I flap my arms.

Well, I'm off to bed, you can go ahead and edit to your hearts content. . . . . . . . . . . . .I'm just messing with you. You got on some thin ice though, your feet must be soaked.

It makes it difficult to discuss the subject if you go back and edit your post after reading my response to it. I quoted your entire post, why did you change it? Paint yourself into a corner?

Are you sure about that? . . . .When you turn up the heat on an electric appliance, lets say a stove, does the voltage go up or the amperage (current). You say voltage, what type of control on the stove increases and decreases the voltage? Hint: The voltage is the same on both sides of the heating element, even lower. You know there is a term called voltage drop?

! Moderator Note This thread is a branch. To discuss multimeter reading on Logitech speaker go back to original thread. E = Volts (pressure) I = Amps (volume) aka current R = Ohms (resistance)

I think those shovels are best for people who already have a bad back, if you are in good physical condition they are not worth the negative trade offs if you're intentions is largely towards preventing a back injury. When material is compacted a shovel with a heavier often solid handle that is inline with the shovel edge will transfer the most energy to the blade. A curved, hollow and most often lighter aluminum alloy handle requires the user to use their body mass to ram the compacted material. Your hands, wrists and elbows will remind you of this work for several days, not only for the missing mass that an inline solid handle would have had, but because the extra effort it took just to overcome the flex in that light weight tube that behaves as a shock absorber. With a regular shovel it is very easy to knock material loose with just using one arm, with the shovel head sliding on the ground, a sort of shuffle board technique. Once the material is loose you switch to both hands. That sword takes advantage of a better angle of attack, the blade aligns with the target better or more efficiently in a radius swing, much like the very curved blade on a battle axe. A sword's length is limited by the metal's strength, the area just ahead of the handle is highly vulnerable to breaking and a sword maker would know this area's vulnerability, and adding a larger tip mass ratio would increase the stresses towards the user's end. My own personal view of how these weapons evolved is that these blades were used as tools more often than weapons. Soldiers used these everyday for clearing campsites, cutting through brush on a march or to build a fortification. How much firewood could be split with that blade. Don't forget about making dinner, they butchered animals too. Most of that wear may have occurred in that thinner area because much non combat activities may involve the need for more control by holding the work with one hand while cutting or chopping with the other. As the blade wears down and that same area is sharpened over and over it would begin to take the observed shape. Once a user observed by comparison how the now lighter and more nimble blade with the better attack angle performed the owner would likely grind down a new one to resemble that old one or ask the sword maker to copy the old one that became so thin it finally broke. I can imagine his response; "OK, but if it breaks and you get killed don't come complaining to me!"

Do you think prison is a deterrent to someone who is willing to blow himself to pieces.

Considering the pace of advancing developments in artificial intelligence and CGI technology, I cannot help but think it will be possible in the distant future to generate individually conscious CGI characters that will contemplate whether their mathematics is something they created or is instead intrinsic to their natural world, of which it would undoubtedly be.

studiot, I'm confused also. I'm avoiding falling into the hole you have dug for me to fall into. It reminds me of that gotcha question a reporter asked the politician - "Do you still beat your wife?" How can I convince you that I am referring to a specific period of time several million years ago when mountain ranges around the world suddenly rose up. These mountains are on continental to continental boundaries (Himalayas), oceanic to continental boundaries (Andes), and as I'm claiming here, oceanic to oceanic boundaries (Mid Atlantic Ridge) I can show the Atlantic's exceptional size (and yes it is exceptional compared to all other MORs) is the result of the same forces as those other mountain ranges mentioned, and others not mentioned but date to the same time period. So this is about globally dispersed boundary deformation that took place around 2-4 million years ago. The reasons why some boundaries produced mountains and others didn't will hopefully be explained here. So according to this model the Atlantic oceanic basin has not deviated from what you have always assumed it was from its creation to the present. It's just that I believe several million years ago the earth crust became loaded with an unusual level of GPE and it overwhelmed certain boundaries, one of these was the Atlantic's boundary, its unusual height and width the result of this sudden mountain building during Plio-Pleistocene. I am not trying to ignore your questions as much as I am trying with all effort to keep this conversation focused on the idea that Dr. Ollier presented; Mountain uplift and the Neotectonic Period I have posted the excerpt of this by Dr. Ollier repeatedly, it has been pretty much ignored with the exception of; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-20#entry851176 So I’m again attempting show how these remarkable observations of the Himalayas by Gansser (1991), Wu et al. (2001), Zheng et al. (2000) and many others should on their own, be of interest to everyone who visits or participates on this thread. Do these observations somehow challenge ones preconceptions of how this planet operates? That the tallest mountains on the planet today were not much higher than what the Tibetan Plateau's Kunlun Pass area's elevation was several million years ago. “According to Wu et al. (2001) from the Pliocene to the Early Quaternary (5-1.1 Million years) the Kunlun Pass area of the Tibetan Plateau was no more than 1500 m high and was warm and humid.” The time frame I’m discussing here begins at that time of the Pliocene and extends into the Pleistocene where most this mountain uplift was largely completed. This was a massive expenditure of energy in an incredibly short period of time. And it occurred in both hemispheres and multiple continents all at the same time. Does anyone find this more than a little challenging for the standard model to explain? OK, back to square one. Let’s imagine that the new divergent boundary infill that is currently being placed in all the world’s MORs is due to the Earth’s crust is being simultaneously moved outward by the mantle oscillations as described by; http://www.researchgate.net/publication/10736864_Bonatti_E._et_al._Mantle_thermal_pulses_below_the_Mid-Atlantic_Ridge_and_temporal_variations_in_the_formation_of_oceanic_lithosphere._Nature_423_499-505 "A 20-Myr record of creation of oceanic lithosphere at a segment of the central Mid-Atlantic-Ridge is exposed along an uplifted sliver of lithosphere. The degree of melting of the mantle that is upwelling below the ridge, estimated from the chemistry of the exposed mantle rocks, as well as crustal thickness inferred from gravity measurements, show oscillations of ,3–4 Myr superimposed on a longer-term steady increase with time. The time lag between oscillations of mantle melting and crustal thickness indicates that the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr, but this appears to vary through time." The three important clues that stand out to me and can be correlated to my idea are; 1.-A 20-Myr record of creation of oceanic lithosphere 2.-oscillations of ,3–4 Myr 3.-longer-term steady increase with time 4.-the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr, but this appears to vary through time." Now let’s look at a simple dynamic model of the earth’s crust that resembles what the convergent and divergent boundaries looked like prior to that period described by Dr. Ollier below; ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, SUPPLEMENT TO VOL. 49, N. 1, 2006 Mountain uplift and the Neotectonic Period CLIFF D. OLLIER School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia 9.2. EXAMPLES 9.2.1. Tibet, Himalayas, Kunlun Mountains (As an example, consider the timing of uplift in Tibet and its bordering mountains. Gansser (1991) wrote: «... we must realize that the morphogenic phase is not only restricted to the Himalayas but involves the whole Tibetan block. This surprising fact shows that an area of 2500000 km2 has been uplifted 3000-4000 m during Pleistocene time and that this uplift is still going on.» In places the uplift rate is 4.5 mm/yr (five times the maximum in the European Alps). According to Wu et al. (2001) from the Pliocene to the Early Quaternary (5-1.1 Million years) the Kunlun Pass area of the Tibetan Plateau was no more than 1500 m high and was warm and humid. They write: «The extreme geomorphic changes in the Kunlun Pass area reflect an abrupt uplift of the Tibet Plateau during the Early and Middle Pleistocene. The Kunlun-Yellow River tectonic movement occurred 1.1-0.6 Million years.» Zheng et al. (2000) concluded from sediments at the foot of the Kunlun Mountains that uplift began around 4.5 Million years.) And consider this also; http://www.rochester...n-in-the-andes/ “This study provides increasing evidence that the plateau formed through periodic rapid pulses, not through a continuous, gradual uplift of the surface, as was traditionally thought,” said Garzione. “In geologic terms, rapid means rising one kilometer or more over several millions of years, which is very impressive.” “What we are learning is that the Altiplano plateau formed by pulses of rapid surface uplift over several million years, separated by long periods (several tens of million years) of stable elevations,” said Garzione. http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3167 “Tectonic Theory May Need Revision in Light of New Study in Science” “Mountains may experience a "growth spurt" that can double their heights in as little as two to four million years—several times faster than the prevailing tectonic theory suggests.” “By studying sedimentary basins in the high Andes Mountains, the team could determine when and at what altitude these ancient sediments were deposited. That record of altitude changes shows that the Andes Mountains rose slowly for tens of millions of years, but then suddenly lifted much faster between 10 and 6 million years ago.” This mountain building in the Himalayas, Andes and other locations started with raising large areas of much lower land simultaneously around the world in very short periods of time. If we could imagine that the crust could supply its own energy to do this by utilizing the GPE it attains when the mantle changes from when 4.-“the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr” to when it moves down once again. The GPE in the crust would then increase because the divergent boundary infill in all boundaries from the last “upwelling” phase of the cycle would need to push the plates towards a convergent trench to equalize the growing compressive energy that the most recent infill is now being subjected to and is passing on to all the planet’s plates. We should then be able to look at the boundaries around the world, both convergent and divergent, and see evidence of their interaction with this last episode of higher GPE that occurred during the Plio-Pleistocene mountain building era. An important point to remember is; if the crust that is adjacent to the boundary (convergent or divergent) is unable to move towards a lower energy state that is at a level of resistance low enough to process the mantle’s rate of subsidence then the boundary, whether it is convergent or divergent, will be subjected to higher compressive energies. This image above represents a divergent boundary similar to the Pacific’s. If we were to imagine the mantle under it had begun moving downward the two continents would begin to move towards each other, and because the world is a sphere they would move towards all the other continents also. The opposing oceanic plates in the image would begin to compress their divergent boundary. But the compression could only reach to the level that the subducting crust encounters at the opposing convergent trenches. The trenches behave as compression relieving mechanisms and limit the amount of compression the divergent boundary can be subjected to. This illustration above represents a combined continental/oceanic spreading center arrangement similar to that of the Atlantic’s. The oceanic crusts are attached to their parental continents as they have been since they first divided. As the two continents move towards each other the convergent boundary is loaded with compression, the oceanic plates respond to this in the only way they can, by pushing back. In this scenario it would be reasonable to expect the Atlantic boundary, in not having the compression relieving mechanisms of convergent boundary trenches, would experience higher levels of compression then the Pacific would. When there is 1.-“A 20-Myr record of creation of oceanic lithosphere” with 2.-“oscillations of ,3–4 Myr”, during which they have a 3.-“longer-term steady increase with time” during which 4.-“the solid mantle is upwelling”; the following subsidence period would have a larger portion of GPE in the crust. A “steady increase with time” over a period of 20 million years would leave a gradually building inventory of surplus divergent boundary material to be dealt with. When the “20 Myr increase with time” period finally comes to an end and a longer than normal period of subsiding mantle is waiting there for it, the Plio-Pleistocene mountain building period that occurred around the planet would be the result. These illustrations below represent a combined continental spreading center arrangement similar to that of the Atlantic’s. The oceanic crusts are attached to their parental continents as they have been since they first divided. As the mantle moves downward the oceanic crusts are loaded with proportional amounts of GPE. The only compression relieving mechanism available in this situation is the continents will need to overcome the resistance that they have to moving to a lower energy state by sliding towards the nearest convergent boundary available. In the Atlantic’s situation this would undoubtedly be greater then what the Pacific’s oceanic plates are subjected to. For example: the energy required to move N. America over the subducted Farallon and then Pacific oceanic plates would be much greater than with what the Pacific expends just subducting into an adjacent convergent trench. In these images above the subsiding mantle during a typical non mountain building subsidence period loads the crust with increasing levels of GPE, eventually this will dissipate as the continents shift to a lower energy state (bottom image) What would we expect to see during those mountain building periods? The GPE is greater during these periods and would compress the Atlantic oceanic plates to greater levels. It would actually raise the oceanic plate’s elevation, crushing the boundary substantially over time. The boundaries newest infill would be the thinnest and softest material. The greater levels of GPE would crush these weakest areas of the crust, eventually transforming this boundary into the largest oceanic mountain range on the planet. What would you say if I was to furnish evidence that the Atlantic divergent boundary was periodically loaded with levels of GPE derived compression so large that the divergent boundary came to the ocean’s surface? And further, that one of these extreme compressive periods occurred during the Plio-Pleistocene mountain building period when the Himalayas and Andes grew at their greatest rates. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/221939638_The_Vema_Transverse_Ridge_(Central_Atlantic) “Multibeam morphobathymetric coverage of the entire Vema Transverse ridge shows it is an elongated (300 km), narrow (<30 km at the base) relief that constitutes a topographic anomaly rising up to 4 km above the predicted thermal contraction level. Morphology and lithology suggest that the Vema Transverse ridge is an uplifted sliver of oceanic lithosphere. Topographic and lithological asymmetries indicate that the transverse ridge was formed by flexure of a lithospheric sliver, uncoupled on its northern side by the transform fault. The transverse ridge can be subdivided in segments bound by topographic discontinuities that are probably fault-controlled, suggesting some differential uplift and/or tilting of the different segments. Two of the segments are capped by shallow water carbonate platforms, that formed about 3–4 m.y. ago, at which time the crust of the transverse ridge was close to sea level. Sampling by submersible and dredging indicates that a relatively undisturbed section of oceanic lithosphere is exposed on the northern slope of the transverse ridge. Preliminary studies of mantle-derived ultramafic rocks from this section suggest temporal variations in mantle composition”. . . . . . “Studies of depth-sensitive fossils and diagenetic textures in the dredged lime-stones have provided the rough outlines of a paleodepth versus age history for the transverse ridge crest. The summit of the transverse ridge was at or above sea level up to about 3 m.y. age, and has since subsided to its present depth (Bonatti et al., 1983)”. . . . . . . “We carried out one dredge on the limestone cap (dredge EW9305-1), recovering a large block of coral resting on a platform of coarse cemented biogeneous calcareous sand, plus smaller pieces of heterogeneous cemented biogeneous limestones, and half a dozen rounded pebbles resembling beach pebbles. . . . . .These new samples are compatible with the previous interpretation that the limestone cap was formed near sea level and subsided to its present location”. . . . . “The uniformity of the transverse ridge profile between 43400W and 42300W, in particular the along-strike persistence of the characteristic stair step morphology on the northern flank, lead us to suggest that an intact block of oceanic lower crust and upper mantle, more than 100 km long, was uplifted without major internal disruption.” The standard model or The Parsons and Sclater (1977) thermal model have no reasonable explanation for this incredible fact that this section was near the surface when the Andes and Himalayas were rising. This would then indicate that the The standard model or The Parsons and Sclater (1977) thermal model are not making accurate prediction of observations. The study I posted above suggests that the entire Mid Atlantic Ridge was elevated to some greater degree for several million years concurrent to when the Andes and Himalayas were rising. This model would suggest it was dependent on the available GPE derived compression present in the crust during this time. Billiards, would you take your “real science” and ... “PLEASE address” this. This next one has several observations to support this hypothesis. http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luca_Gasperini/publication/221939595_Lower_Cretaceous_to_Eocene_sedimentary_transverse_ridge_at_the_Romanche_Fracture_Zone_and_the_opening_of_the_equatorial_Atlantic/links/02bfe50e54bab7655e000000.pdf “The Romanche transform offsets the Mid Atlantic Ridge by about 900 km and is the largest of a set of major equatorial Atlantic fracture zones. Assuming for the crust adjacent to the transform an average spreading rate of 1.75 cm/yr (Cande et al., 1988) and a constant ridge/ transform geometry, the age offset of the Romanche transform is roughly 50 million years. A transform-parallel transverse ridge, running adjacent to the northern side of the fracture zone is particularly prominent for a stretch of several hundred kilometers centered opposite to the eastern ridge/ transform intersection (RTI), where the topographic anomaly reaches 4 km above the predicted thermal contraction level (Bonatti et al.,1994). Seismic reflection data and extensive rock sampling indicate that the western portion of the transverse ridge . . . . consists of slivers of uplifted oceanic crust and upper mantle (Bonatti et al.,1994). The summit of the transverse ridge is capped in this area by Miocene shallow water limestones that reached above sea level about 20 ma, and then subsided at a rate faster than that of “normal” lithospheric cooling. (Gasperini et al.,1997a)”. . . . . Under this “Miocene shallow water limestones” is a layer of deep-water sediments as old as 140 Ma that are on top of oceanic crust estimated to be 50 million years old. . . . . .”The presence of such a thick sedimentary sequence, including deep-water sediments as old as 140 Ma, less than 150 km from the RTI, does not fit a normal sea-floor spreading scenario and opening of the equatorial Atlantic.” Post 415 Billards said: "Interestingly, this is actually evidence against your hypothesis. Your hypothesis requires oceanic crust formation to stop and start. However, these studies clearly show that oceanic crust formation is constantly ongoing." Bold mine. You may want to reconsider that post in light of the 140 Ma sediments on top of what the standard model assumes to be 50 MY crust. If one would consider that the subduction in this model takes longer to process an equal amount of divergent boundary infill, then what is an anomaly for the standard model is easily explained by this model. This is the second post that I made on this thread. Just to point it out, the time span between the Vema and Romanche ridge’s “carbonate caps” is 20 million years. The divergent boundary infill material is extruded into the divergent boundary openings as the mantle is displacing outward, tearing the crust/mantle boundary surface area and releasing the thermal energy that produces melting of the C/M boundary area materials. Subduction will take place continuously because there is enough GPE in the crust to overcome the resistance of the convergent trenches. When the mantle begins contracting the divergent boundaries stop spreading and begin compressing. The magma in the crust/mantle boundary area that is created during the mantle’s displacement is now cooling and reforming into mantle surface material. The subducting crust will find the surface and mantle interior tightening its grip as it attempts to further penetrate. This resistance decreases subduction rates and has helped maintained the crust’s current GPE that is currently still pushing the Himalayas and Andes still higher. The current outward displacement of the mantle that is seen in all of the divergent boundaries presently, is with the subduction taking place around the world, slowly removing the crust’s inventory of GPE. The much slower but always occurring subduction has been able to increase since the mantle has begun to displace outward once again. The mantle’s outer boundary has expanded and melted from the release of strain energy allowing the plate to move more easily into the now much “softer” mantle material. Considering that the sea floor age estimates at the Romanche Fracture Zone look to be off by over by 90 million years this model’s increase of time vs sea floor spreading metrics by possibly more than double and decrease of subduction rates due to when the mantle is cooling during those periods of no seafloor production, the 140 million year age estimate at the Romanche Fracture Zone is quite possible with this model. Again you are either simply wrong or purposely trying to again misrepresent what this model has presented. The earthquakes simply correlated to changes in solar magnetic flux. The 14C proxy data correlate the Sun’s most pronounce changes in solar magnetic energy to the timing of the Japanese earthquake records. And by this it shows how the liquid iron of the Earth’s field generator inductively responds to the Sun’s magnetic flux. When the molten iron expands or contracts the mantle will magnify this very minute change in the outer core’s thermal content to larger crust/mantle boundary movement. The Pacific plate will magnify this movement even further and produce the recorded seismic events. The earthquakes occur at precise points of large increases or decreases of solar magnetic content and timing, a very simple idea. Could it be that it being so simple is the reason that no one had thought of it before? I do recall someone promoting the idea that we should believe that there were other unrecorded Japanese earthquakes in the past that would then skew my evidence. I then showed by the latest research that they probably did not exist. And then nobody wanted to discuss it any further until now. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry815114 As a side note; I believe the Vema and Romanche ridges, located in the central Atlantic and being so close to each other, is not random or a coincidence. If the mantle was to move down ever so slightly and move all the plates towards each other simultaneously, the four opposing continents of the Atlantic would compress in the manner seen below; But an area of the Atlantic basin that is narrower (the equatorial being the only one) would be required to process a similar quantity of lateral continental movement that a wider basin area such as the North Atlantic would need to. The narrower section would process this disproportionate and higher continental-movement-to-basin-width-ratio by either compressing the divergent boundary more or raising it higher than the adjacent and wider basin areas to the north and the south were raised. This prediction of observation appears, with the others, to hold true. "This is ridiculous. Your model is global. How on Earth does it predict local "hotspot" volcanism?" ​No - It just accurately predicts its movement as N. America moves over it.

I find your humble arrogance completely unacceptable and acceptable. Damn you, Ophiolite! P.S. Glad you're back! It wasn't the same without you.

What is important when discussing very chronologically distant and dependent geological events is their exact location on a moving and dynamic planetary surface when these events are perceived to be related and to have occurred. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps The Deccan Traps began forming 66.250 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period. The bulk of the volcanic eruption occurred at the Western Ghats (near Mumbai) some 66 million years ago. This series of eruptions may have lasted less than 30,000 years in total.[3] As you can see India was not subducting or even in the initial stages of contact with Southern Asia.

Can one simply walk the walk without the Podiatric supervision.

In my humble opinion, what is a scientist, and who can determine those that qualify, are those individuals who have achieved the highest level of education in those chosen fields. In our area you may do electrical work on your own home as long as you get the proper permits and complete the inspection processes. Doing this does not ultimately qualify you as an electrician. This is the crux of the matter, only those that meet the educational standards set forth, by those qualified to judge, can be certified as having the minimum standards to be considered as competent in those prescribed fields. That being said; certain individuals during their own eras, or soon following, have been given the privilege to be called a scientist by that period's qualified contemporaries, this despite them as not having completed the accepted educational requirements of the time period. Ben Franklin and the Wright brothers used their time period's known scientific processes to make their discoveries that ultimately added to the prior scientific understanding and consequently made them deservedly famous. What was Ben Franklin's education? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin Franklin's father; "wanted Ben to attend school with the clergy, but only had enough money to send him to school for two years. He attended Boston Latin School but did not graduate; he continued his education through voracious reading. Although "his parents talked of the church as a career for Franklin, his schooling ended when he was ten." While for the Wright brothers, only one had completed high school. Would these inadequate educational backgrounds be insurmountable in the eyes of today's academia? Or would it be a case by case determination based on the scientific value of the individual's discovery?

The noise is produced when the hot water contacts the general area around the spout. This is just a portion of the total area that forms the tapered and formed metal opening that is itself encased within the plastic integrated handle that forms the actual opening into the interior. These two very different materials expand when heated at very different rates of expansion, with the metal container producing an outward radial movement as the hot water expands the area of the spout. The less thermally reactive plastic rim, that is integrated to the handle, is fitted tight enough to prevent leakage and would no doubt cause the metal to pop as it forces its way past the tight fitting slot that it is encased in. I would bet you could reproduce the sound when the pot is cool by just heating the spout area with an electric heat gun or even a hair dryer.

Hi krumov, and welcome to SFN. You might take a look at the four Galilean moons of Jupiter; Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. They are some of the largest moons in the solar system, Ganymede is even larger than Mercury. They may even have been at their early beginnings, solar orbiting planets that were captured by Jupiter. The outermost have been held in somewhat cryogenic conditions, possibly retaining their early earth like chemistry under their layers of ice. The four moons display through their varied orbital distances from Jupiter, a graduated exposure to gravities and radiation that has allowed them to all develop in their own unique way. Europa and Ganymede have chemical trace atmospheres with Ganymede being the "only satellite in the Solar System known to possess a magnetosphere, likely created through convection within the liquid iron core." These moons are likely our best chance to find ext-life in the coming decades.

Maybe different local that doesn't malign your delicate sensibilities would help remove any temptation to falter. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QtwIwAGoVChMIt6mjtpaRxwIVC5qICh2q3wlt&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5CaMUfxVJVQ&ei=cJrBVbexBYu0ogSqv6foBg&usg=AFQjCNF1EIJmIuuS0DxVXOwkn7TZKiP11w&sig2=tKfnBOJgzlW_1Uqne4jUyQ I believe they had to edit out the cheerleader uniform portion due to a poorly executed pyramid.

BRAVO!

Evidence against? Constantly ongoing? This model only needs the mantle to slowly move out and then slowly move back in again, as in a cycle. What did that paper say? "A 20-Myr record of creation of oceanic lithosphere at a segment of the central Mid-Atlantic-Ridge is exposed along an uplifted sliver of lithosphere. The degree of melting of the mantle that is upwelling below the ridge, estimated from the chemistry of the exposed mantle rocks, as well as crustal thickness inferred from gravity measurements, show oscillations of, 3–4 Myr superimposed on a longer-term steady increase with time. The time lag between oscillations of mantle melting and crustal thickness indicates that the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr, but this appears to vary through time." Below is my opening post of this thread; I’m describing the original and very simple model that I had used in the beginning to differentiate the various modes of the cycle. “So I started with a simple model, just a divergent plate boundary, a plate and a convergent boundary (trench). The cycle begins with a small thermal increase in the molten iron core from increased current due to induction from the strengthening of the Sun's magnetic field. As the molten core presses out from thermal expansion it expands the mantle ever so slightly which opens the divergent plate boundaries in the currently observed manner, filling with magma as they expand. After several million years of this solar increase induced cycle the Sun's magnetic field lowers and the Earth's field generator's core begins a cooler period of operation. As the core and mantle slowly recede the crust is put into compression against the newest divergent boundary deposits which leverages the crust towards the trench as the crust follows the mantle as it recedes from the cooling core. This is when the subduction takes place. The compression bleeds into the trenches until the next heat cycle increase.” sev·er·al ˈsev(ə)rəl/ determiner & pronoun 1. More than two but not many. It appears I predicted the duration of the cycle correctly. It is clear from that paper that the mantle moves out and then back in a cycle of several million years. It moves out far enough that its solid mantle material was left imbedded in the crustal record. “The time lag between oscillations of mantle melting and crustal thickness indicates that the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr, but this appears to vary through time." I have already stated many times that this model uses the mantle’s outward movement to open all of the divergent boundaries to magma intrusion simultaneously. This periodic boundary infill material is what will later produce the increase of gravitational potential energy in the crust that drives subduction. And in the case of the Atlantic MOR this material will produce the force needed to drive the opposing continents apart as the mantle periodically subsides, and even more important, the energy to drive N. America over the Farallon plate. This will of course result in the Atlantic boundary being loaded periodically with much higher levels of compression than any of the other mid ocean ridge sections, because as I've already said the others have convergent boundaries that will process the compression while the Atlantic has no such stress relieving mechanisms, so the Atlantic MOR will be required to store this compressive energy long term as raised mass. And when there is a large differential between the quantity of divergent boundary material and the degree of mantle subsidence, as is the case with the Pleo-Pleistocene, there would be a tremendous amount of compression in the crust that would produce energies beyond what any convergent boundary could process. The Himalayas, the Andes and all other convergent and divergent boundaries are where this energy became stored. So we know that the mantle moves out and then back in because it has “oscillations”. I have posted repeatedly in this thread that the Pleo-Pleistocene mountain building period occurred simultaneously around the globe, the Himalayas, the Andes, the Coast Range and many others all occurred during the same geologic time period. These are simultaneous global events that require a simultaneous global solution to their causation. Would anyone argue that the crust would not be put into a compressive load state by these “oscillations”. That the entire crust would not be simultaneously leveraged against the most recent divergent boundary infill when the mantle moves down, causing the crust to slowly accumulate compression as the mantle recedes. “Interestingly, this is actually evidence against your hypothesis. Your hypothesis requires oceanic crust formation to stop and start. However, these studies clearly show that oceanic crust formation is constantly ongoing.“ Yes, it must stop and start. That is how the Earth’s surface acquired its current arrangement. Where can you see evidence of the “oscillation” process working within the time scale of the 3-4 Myr that was stated in the previous paper? The Yellowstone Hotspot’s intermittent progress eastward across the N.W. U.S. displays the pause that allows the caldera to form. This stationary period coincides to when the mantle is incrementally displacing outward as magma is filling the slowly opening divergent boundaries around the world. This new ridge material will in turn provide the leverage to produce the westward advancement of the N. American plate that simulates the Yellowstone hotspot’s movement east during the mantle’s subsequent return towards the core. The timing matches the article’s estimates; “oscillations of, 3–4 Myr superimposed on a longer-term steady increase with time. The time lag between oscillations of mantle melting and crustal thickness indicates that the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr, but this appears to vary through time." Image provided by Kelvin Case at English Wikipedia, who has no connection to this author or this work. As you can see the fit is remarkable, this model matches not only the overall timing but the duration of the cycle segments of pause and then movement to the next hot spot location. Add to this the model's ability to furnish the energy to move the continental mass over the remains of the Farallon and the hot spot complex itself, makes this a very accurate prediction of observation. The current explanation for the Hawaiian-Emperor Sea Mount Chain is that they are the result of a hot mantle plume from the core/mantle boundary or are the result of a lithospheric extension that allows the passive rising of melt from a more shallow depth. The continuous plate movement of the standard model puts the responsibility of this island chain's periodicity of individual island building on a continually moving ocean plate squarely on the magma source and the requirement that it must have the unique ability to produce the magma in pulses so as to build islands separated by time and distance. The fact that the standard model does not offer a satisfactory means to move the plates in the first place only compounds the model’s problems regarding this phenomenon. The standard model appears to be a rather incomplete and complicated explanation that requires a tenuous expectation of the source’s ability to maintain such consistency over what likely extends beyond the farthest currently observed position of this system, considering the oldest seamount dates to where the chain is now being consumed into the Kuril–Kamchatka Trench 5,800 kilometers from the source’s current location suggests it is much older still. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian%E2%80%93Emperor_seamount_chain The oldest age for the Emperor Seamounts is 81 million years, and comes from Detroit Seamount. However, Meiji Guyot, located to the north of Detroit Seamount, is likely somewhat older. "Hawaii hotspot" by National Geophysical Data Center/USGS Bold mine. Studiot , my argument is directed to the energy that the Atlantic MOR must process during times when the mantle subsides and the crust is compressed. Not the origin of the Atlantic MOR or its more distant history. My argument is directed at and in contradiction with the standard model over the extraordinary elevation of the Atlantic MOR and the reasons for it. I am not contending; "the ridge is the result of pre-existing being thrust up" as you state above. I think maybe you had misunderstood my example and my intention in regards to my posting of the Flat Iron mountain range that is located in a continental interior. They are the result of levels of compression that rival the Pleo-Pleistocene period. Levels so extraordinary they could buckle and stack continental sections at high degrees of angle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountains "Immediately after the Laramide orogeny, the Rockies were like Tibet: a high plateau, probably 6,000 metres (20,000 ft) above sea level. In the last 60 million years, erosion stripped away the high rocks, revealing the ancestral rocks beneath, and forming the current landscape of the Rockies." These mountain ranges located on continental interiors are by the standard model unexplained due to the energy levels required, levels similar to the Pleo-Pleistocene. The Atlantic boundary is not special and cannot be excused from participating in the tribulations that the other boundaries must endure. The Pleo-Pleistocene was a global event and has left its mark as raised mass around the globe. The Himalayas, Andes and other examples show what this period has imposed on the planet’s crust within this recent past and includes by no exception the Atlantic MOR. Due to the adjacent plates lack of convergent boundaries to redirect these extreme energies the shape and height of the Atlantic MOR must reflect the events of that period. Essay, could you possibly explain where the spreading center is in that image? The real boundary is diverging in opposite directions. That image should show where the 25 mm of magma a year is being injected in between the diverging plate sections. Are you proposing that the center section shown in that image will eventually rise up and split in half? What I do see in that image is where magma would be injected on either side of that center section when the mantle displaces outward, sort of a 12.5 mm of magma on each side per year. That center section would then continue to grow in width. "I think your graphics got shifted east, relative to the center of the MAR." I was very careful when I did those cross sections and the site is very easy to operate. I am quite positive they are on the ridge center.

OK, starting next Friday the 20th I'll be absent, won't be around again until March 1st or so. You have something against 19 and 28? Your guess is as good as mine. Yes 50-55 km is correct. I tried to center on the ridge every time, some are off a little bit though. My point is the same as yours actually. I do not diverge from what you say above, that the sections have grown at different rates and show the typical progression of plate tectonic movement. Its that if the figure of 25 mm a year of Atlantic Mid-Ocean Ridge infill is accurate then by simple deduction 2 million years puts those two opposing ridges at the center of the boundary where the actual plate sections are parting ways. I find it reasonable to imagine that if the mantle could subside it would load the entire boundary as simultaneously as would be geologically possible. That 2 million years journey back in time puts those two opposing halves together, centered on the boundary during the Pleo-Pleistocene mountain building period that I have documented previously. The Himalayan and Andean mountain building required an extended period of building an increased level of gravitational potential energy prior to the movement that raised those ranges so quickly 2 MYA. The combined force of four continents would be bearing down at the same time on the Atlantic boundary. This would leave a rather precise marker in the form of a deformation of the boundary from that energy level. Add to this, these mountain building episodes occur at 30 million +/- year intervals. The normal mode of operation for this model would be what we have currently, a slow divergent boundary infill rate that this model would expect to vary over time to allow the boundary infill to be a driver of subduction. Gradually building GPE as the mantle subsides and then to replace it when it displaces outward again. "Now please explain why there are no compressional faults on the ocean floor, according to your model." I'll have to look into that. I'll get back to you. When I look at that boundary I see a structure that endures tremendous hardship as it slowly jacks N. America over the top of what's left of the Farallon Plate as the mantle cycles. How does the standard model accomplish that? I thought this was rather interesting; Mantle thermal pulses below the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and temporal variations in the formation of oceanic lithosphere Enrico Bonatti*†‡, Marco Ligi*, Daniele Brunelli*†, Anna Cipriani‡, Paola Fabretti*, Valentina Ferrante*†, Luca Gasperini* & Luisa Ottolini§ * Istituto di Scienze Marine, Geologia Marina, CNR, Via Gobetti 101, 40129, Bologna, Italy † Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Universita` “La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00187, Rome, Italy ‡ Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA § Istituto di Geoscienze e Georisorse, Sezione di Pavia, CNR, Via Ferrata 1, 27100, Pavia, Italy "A 20-Myr record of creation of oceanic lithosphere at a segment of the central Mid-Atlantic-Ridge is exposed along an uplifted sliver of lithosphere. The degree of melting of the mantle that is upwelling below the ridge, estimated from the chemistry of the exposed mantle rocks, as well as crustal thickness inferred from gravity measurements, show oscillations of ,3–4 Myr superimposed on a longer-term steady increase with time. The time lag between oscillations of mantle melting and crustal thickness indicates that the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr, but this appears to vary through time." " the solid mantle is upwelling" That would be the displacing mantle - but their close. It sure sounds like that "Plate Tectonic Mechanism" some crazy guy on SFN is talking about.

Sorry, you could us the quote button. I was referring to this one directly. I think its basin metric is self explanatory. Around 9 km from 19 or so to 28. I wasn't BTW measuring the "widest areas" I wasn't directly referring to this one's "basin" measurement. I was more interested in getting a reasonable ridge to ridge measurement and this one was clear enough to include. It was obviously taken where the floor narrowed. I would assume when a boundary is crushed and ruptured vertically, the following resumption of divergent activity would result in debris slides into the center as it widens. We know by the scale these slopes are not this steep. Did this answer your question?

I sampled at 90 degrees to the boundary axis between those two lines.