arc

It's like chittychittybangbang on crack. . . . . . er, I mean cocaine.

That would be that good old fashion magic that movie makers dish out like candy. Hell, how could you contain that amount of energy right behind the occupants and not die from some sort of radiation.

And your alternative would be? . . . . . https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/faith-healing-religious-freedom-vs-child-protection/ "In 1997 a six-year-old boy in Oregon died from a necrotic bowel due to a hernia that could easily have been treated. The pathologist’s first reaction was “Not again!” He and his associate had compiled evidence of 18 children who had died over the last 10 years from curable diseases in a Followers of Christ congregation of 1,200 people. That worked out to 26 times the usual infant mortality rate. And it wasn’t just children: followers’ wives were dying in childbirth at 900 times the usual rate. One died of a type of infection that hadn’t killed anyone in America since 1910. Nothing could be done about it, because Oregon had one of the strongest religious shield laws in the country. It protected parents from allegations of religious intolerance and gave them the right to withhold medical care for their children. In fact, the shield had just been beefed up: a new law to increase the punishment for murder by spousal or child abuse specifically prohibited prosecution for manslaughter if the person responsible was acting on religious beliefs. A TV reporter named Mark Hass was told that there had been a cluster of preventable deaths among the Followers of Christ in Oregon City. He looked into it, but there were no criminal complaints, no police investigations, and the county DA was uninterested. When his investigation seemed to have reached a dead end, someone suggested he visit the local cemetery. He counted the graves of 78 children. He launched America’s first major series of TV reports on faith-healing abuse on KATU in Portland." The irony is killing me. . . . . . .

John, a thread was started on this forum today, the poster asked if members believed in the death penalty. Since the introduction of DNA evidence there have been an unprecedented level of exonerated people released from death row. These people were tried and convicted on what we could refer to as "jazzy" evidence. Their demise had been decided by an ensemble of bad police work and an indifferent prosecution, who all I'm sure, believed the accused were guilty. The evidence that was presented to the jury in many of these cases was provided by a jail house informant who was rewarded in some way for their testimony. These people gained their freedom, their lives, from pure science based evidence. Evidence that could not be deluded by the judicial incompetence that lead to the original injustice. This evidence left no doubt of their innocence. Someday you may find yourself in similar dire circumstances, would you prefer the jazzy freestyle investigation and prosecution, or would you rather bet entrust your life on the clear and concise evidence provided by a forensic scientist. John, you are mistaken in your concept of science, its not the group of scientists that form an accepted standard that holds sway, it is the scientifically derived evidence that holds them. The same evidence that would keep you from being wrongly put to death.

i believe you have created the greatest airline logo ever conceived.

I'll take a shot at it; "The orders of the parts of time is immutable, so is the order of the parts of space." Immutable is unchanging, forever the same, but this also means it is predictable. "For times and places are...the places themselves as of all other things" He's saying he can determine any objects location in the past, present or future by their own positions in relation to time.

Condensation is not the only mechanism that can produce soggy conditions. If you lower the atmospheric pressure of a container your will slowly draw the oils out of the cheese and into the bread. Cheese is mostly oil and water and they will easily transport in a vacuum, your best option is to maintain a steady temperature and adjust ingredients and cooking methods to optimize long term stability over time.

That's what I would think, like sucking on an orange. I think keeping the temperature as high as possible to that of just after cooking would eliminate the condensation problem. These bags come in different sizes so one could be put inside of another to extend the thermal content. A single bag is rated for three hours, doubling up would be more than enough. The next issue would be to try different cooking methods and butter/oils/margarine/? to grill the food with. One or another would perform the best at retaining the proper texture over the extended time period. Each would need to be tested by the little guy to his satisfaction. MODEL NO. SIZE W x H x D WEIGHT CAPACITY QTY./ CASE PRICE PER CASE 135+S-19783 15" x 12" x 6" 20 lbs .25 $49 These can also be bought in smaller quantities, I saw some on Amazon for under 8 dollars for a set of three, each a different size.

I am sorry for the difficulties you face, I know how overwhelming they are for you and your family. I have Aspergers and I didn't have a clue as to the impact my early behaviour had on my family until I was grown and was raising two Asperger boys of my own. My wife was able to stay at home and take the greatest share of the work of not only raising those two but also two more siblings that for all of our gratitude were free of this condition. Our oldest son, who is now 29 and thriving, was absolutely and unanimously disliked by every teacher in his grade school and true to his condition, he had not a clue of any of it. He thought every one of them loved him! On the other hand, my now 27 year old son who was so sweet yet stubborn beyond any known metric developed eating peculiarities when quite young, these are still a difficulty to this day. It has been very hard on my wife to be still caring for him on a daily basis for so long of a time. His condition seems at times to be getting more severe and we are quite certain we will care for him until we're gone. And of course worry what will become of him then. This is a very isolating condition and demands more than many are willing to give as you of course already know. I wonder if keeping the food as close to the original temperature would work for the grilled cheese sandwich, they have some amazing stay hot food containers now. It seems that the condensation forms during cooling. Wrapping the sandwich in wax paper and then in several paper towels before going into the thermal pouch might control any moisture that would result. Also, maybe try aluminum foil to some capacity in different combination with the other two suggestions. I'm sure we can figure this out. I know you're exasperated by this and all the other countless details you face but please try experimenting a little and see what you can develop. Come back and give us an update, and we may be able to work around any new problems. The folks here are really not as difficult to deal with as you might at first thought, you and I have just walked a different path than most of them have. I hope we can stay in touch, feel free to PM me if you have any ideas or thoughts.

According to this research below, Mars could have experienced in its distant past a scenario similar to what the OP outlined. http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~manga/phillips2001.pdf Ancient Geodynamics and Global-Scale Hydrology on Mars Roger J. Phillips,1 Maria T. Zuber, 2, 3 Sean C. Solomon, 4 Matthew P. Golombek,5 Bruce M. Jakosky 6 W. Bruce Banerdt, 5 David E. Smith,3 Rebecca M. E. Williams, 1 Brian M. Hynek, 1 Oded Aharonson, 2 Steven A. Hauck II, 1 1 McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA. 2 Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. 3 Earth Sciences Directorate, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA. 4 Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC 20015, USA. 5 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA. 6 Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA. The release of CO2 and H2O to the martian atmosphere from magma erupted and intruded during Tharsis formation may have affected the Noachian climate. For the 100-km-thick elastic lithosphere we assume (2), the observed topography plus the volume of material contained within the depression resulting from Tharsis loading amounts to ~ 3 x 10^8 km^3 of igneous material, which is equivalent to a 2-km-thick global layer (30). For a magmatic CO2 content of 0.65 weight percent (wt %) [which is consistent with Hawaiian basaltic lavas (31)] and an H2O content of 2 wt % (32), the total release of gases from Tharsis magmas could produce the integrated equivalent of a 1.5-bar CO2 atmosphere and a 120-m-thick global layer of water. These quantities of volatiles are sufficient to warm the atmosphere to the point at which liquid water is stable at the surface (33). The accumulation of atmospheric CO2 may have made the latter part of the Noachian the most favorable time for this condition.

I believe this image is the most revealing of the lot. Those beams defiantly took a hit, whether it was just the first one that was struck and then the bracing duplicated the forces to the adjacent beam or the lift contacted each beam in succession, is unclear. That bracing is lined up with the deformations rather nicely though. I believe the beam's final resting place, so far short of the ledge, suggests the beam's horizontal movement in addition to the shortening from the beam's deformation would be adequate to move the beam's end clear of its support. Another thing that is interesting in that image above is the in-beds on top of the beams look as if their welds failed at every location, they don't appear to have even spalled the concrete anywhere. They also appear to be in much shorter quantity than in studiot's image, the ones that can be seen in the red stripe of oxide paint, pulled from the beam by the concrete, show spacing possibly +/- a meter. Theirs something fishy about that area where the beams contacted the deck above.

Here is some images I took today in Portland Oregon. This seems to be a nationally standard design from the 1950's or very early 60's: This overpass was seismically up-graded in the past 15 years or so, you can see the cement blocking (A) that was added between the steel beams: I believe the cement was pumped into the formed section, I am looking into the exact technique used. The beam ends on the ledge were also boxed-in with cement: And too also above the lintels: This additional bracing does not appear to be present in the failed structure. Once those beams were rolled sideways, twisted by the heavy equipment passing underneath, the deck above would have little support. The working platform of the construction equipment is lying under the outside beam, the force of the impact tore the equipment off the tractor-trailer that was hauling it. It appears there is some type of bracing between the first and second beam, that may have duplicated the sideload of the first beam to that of the second one. Without the boxed-in ends at the ledge there was probably little to hold them in place but a few bolts, so they were likely pulled off the ledge as they folded.

OK . . . . . . I guess vodka has enough water in it straight out of the bottle, you could say that.

Coal is simply an end product of a multi MY process of concentrating the wood and other derived source carbon through heat and pressure at great depths within the Earth. The wood could also be put through an artificial refining process of heat and pressure that would reduce it to the same MJ/L as the coal.

I would guess that after many years of experience the moderators and even some members have probably developed the skill to pick up subtle similarities in the M.O. of the average puppeteer. In just the few years that I have been here many of the members that regularly post have imprinted their own style of writing that resembles to me a recognisable pattern or "voice". That writing pattern is surprisingly rather hard to break. Your average puppeteer would need to invest some extra effort to hide their identity. And that's rather unlikely, given that the puppet's creation is likely due to laziness and an unwillingness to put in the effort to do good work in the first place.

You get wet.

In a way, a visit to a science forum is not unlike a first time dip in an unfamiliar public swimming pool. The visitor is likely to be, in either venue, self-conscious, unless of course they are attractive in a swimsuit or scientifically competent in either of the appropriate regards. When I started here I was a nervous wreck every time I was posting, it took me well over a year to calm down. I'm sure it caused me to overreact in my responses to the inquiries of others. I believe this is the crux of the matter here. A swimming facility with an inadequate filtering system would likely not attract the novice, amateur or professional clientele that overwhelmingly behave properly and have the appropriate hygiene practices that takes the considerations of the other users as a priority. Do the moderators, from many threads experience, perceive a likely pattern of behavior in many new members and act in a predictable manner in response? Probably so. Are they usually right? Most likely. One can imagine a swimming hole somewhere else, where all the drunken locals show up for their bath/swim/ let’s just relieve ourselves while we’re at it, no need for rules. What we are considering here after all is how clean and inviting this site appears to a first time visitor/prospective member, not to mention the continued satisfaction of the regular members. I really do not see any problems with the moderation on this site. They keep the site working smoothly for the overall benefit of all members and visitors. Thanks for all the hard work, you are appreciated! Do we need or really want a separate kiddie pool with a low or no hygiene requirement? Does it seem likely these individuals would not become lax in discerning their location and their appropriate responsibilities in regards to it? Would other new members not realize that they have clicked onto an unregulated thread from the new content list and assume the whole site is a free for all? I see a cross contamination issue in this idea. edit: spelling error.

Pavelcherepan, we could call this billiards part II, because this thread has been down this road already. Those dwarfs or whatever you personally want to call them (your choice) have been busy for at least 545 million years doing what this model predicted from post #1. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/#entry735239 “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.” (Pay close attention to that underlined part.) The mantle oscillates - as predicted by this model. They are real measurable phenomena. Here are the two papers regarding them. https://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 http://www.geoconvention.com/archives/2013/183_GC2013_Episodic_Tectonics.pdf “Fifty-six, large magnitude sequence boundaries have been delineated in the Phanerozoic succession of Arctic North America. The characteristics of the boundaries indicate that they were primarily generated by tectonics. The boundaries occur with an approximate 10 million year frequency (9.8 +/- 3.1). Each boundary was generated during a tectonic episode interpreted to reflect a mantle-driven, plate tectonic reorganization and consequent changes in regional stress fields. It is estimated that the duration of each of the tectonic episodes was in the range of a few million years and was significantly shorter than the intervening times of tectonic quiescence.” (Hey look at that! It says several million years too!) Now, being a professional geologist, you must still be operating under the assumption that massive mathematically modeled convective movements of mantle material are at work in the mantle. Rising up, moving the tectonic plates around, building mountain ranges, pushing plates into convergent boundaries and all that stuff. And you feel fine believing that . . . .good. Now could you please explain without resorting to dwarfs (because those are for my model.) 1. How the material in the mantle convects 2. How mantle dynamics and plate kinematics are linked at the surface Now if you can’t do that I’m quite worried that your foundational understanding of geology may be based on an incorrect mathematical model. And further, that you have based your entire premise on an unseen and purely imagined idea that is little more than a figment of imagination. Let’s call those figments; mantle Gnomes. The mantle oscillations that this model uses to make accurate predictions of observations are actually real and documented to have taken place, while the mantle convections of the standard model have remained unobserved and are merely a mathematical hypothesis. So, please clear this up. Give us the answers to those two questions. Hint: I know you won’t/can’t answer those two questions. Why do I know you can’t? http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_ MANTLE DYNAMICS AND PLATE KINEMATICS Carlo Doglioni, La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy Roberto Sabadini, University of Milan, Italy ". . . . . none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle." “nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects” Yup . . . . . you have a bad case of the Gnomes . . So, . .pot calls kettle . . . But this quote is my favorite: "The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle" It is interesting how this sentence describes the behavior of a crust that has an outward displacing mantle beneath it, just as it was proposed by this model. That whole paragraph has so much good information; it’s rather refreshing to hear the honest truth about convection instead of all that rainbows, lollipops and convection Gnome’s mathematical speculations that is commonly sweetened with so much self-deluded confidence. Again, the mantle oscillations have been actually documented to have occurred above and below the crust. Reality and my Dwarves are kicking the crap out of your imaginary convection model and its Gnomes. This model predicted them (the Dwarves and their oscillations, not the Gnomes) and their effects were debated with several members of the forum for several pages to what I feel was a satisfactory conclusion. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry891454 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry900283 Mathematical models are great and are the foundation of science but at this point in time if you’re a geologist and you’re getting your Gnomes squished by some guy’s Dwarves, it’s time to get a better model. So, billiards has dodged these questions for many pages now, I keep asking for predictions of observations, just some simple causes and effects for the standard model’s convection theory . . . . . . and they never seem to show up . . . . .DAMB UNRELIABLE GNOMES! My model predicted what the Dwarves do, how they do it and when they do it. And what can your model predict? “none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects.” Oh right, that would be nothing. Well, If they’ll accept mantle Gnomes, I’ll assume for now they’ll accept my accurate predictions of observations of plate movement that were derived from the mantle oscillations seen in Doglioni et al and Embry et al research papers, and the predictions of observations in post’s 422 and 426 where I explained in a simple dynamic model how these oscillations put in place enough GPE to raise the Atlantic MOR. Exactly why you need to show some predictions of observations for that vague, hypothetical mantle convection (I know you can’t because Doglioni spilled the beans) unlike those mantle oscillations. (Because those are real!) This is where you need to show by direct cause and effect what Doglioni said has not been done yet. Since the whole standard model is dependent on and supported by mantle convective currents, you must show first that the convective currents even exist like the oscillations do. Then you need to show with a simple dynamic model of cause and effect how they drive the plates around and produce the observable results such as mountain orogeny. But I know you won’t, what you are going to do instead is do the only thing you can, vacillate and give ambivalent generalizations; “It’s soooo elegant” And then when pressed; "Ooooh, . . . . it’s a veeeery complicated problem, but were reeeeally closing in on it." Right, exactly what I have done, I showed the existing theory is flawed, and that it could not make any accurate predictions of observations. Again, that whole Atlantic MOR post several pages back where this model kicked your Gnomes’ butt. No, convection gnomes are circular logic. Again, you need to get your own speculative house in order before you can tell someone else how to run theirs, I have stayed true to the model I started this thread with and it has performed wonderfully, you should be so fortunate. But you would first need to dump that out of date model you have. Let’s see how you do with those two questions regarding Doglioni’s revelation that the standard model is powered by some mysterious phenomena we can now, by your logic, refer to as Gnomes. Oh we certainly are, you need to back-up what you’re saying, I’ve called into question the accuracy of the standard model with statements by a renowned geologists. You are challenging my model from a position of authority. If you cannot satisfactorily show the convection model to be superior to my model in making predictions then my model stands. No, I believe it is your idea that according to the standard model the cooling planet would lead to more subduction zones. In my model subduction zones occur where I explained in post 454. This is due to those periodically occurring oscillations that determined how much or how little GPE is available in the crust to drive subduction or to raise mountain ranges. "The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle" The outward displacing mantle (as noted above) could at certain times impose substantial shear forces on the crust that could reduce the GPE and in turn produce extensional features like the Basin and Range and pull Island Arc’s towards their trenches. During the eventual mantle subsidence the crust would once again begin loading with increasing GPE that will, in turn, push the plates once more into the convergent boundaries or more rarely, upwards as mountain ranges. No, I’m referring to time varying Solar magnetic induction of the planetary geodynamo. Similar to this paper regarding how Ganymede responds to Jupiter’s much larger and more powerful field. http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/ICRUS1572507.pdf "Magnetometer data from Galileo’s multiple flybys of Ganymede provide significant, but not unambiguous, evidence that the moon, like its neighboring satellites Europa and Callisto, responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field." My reference to "top down" is in regards to; The surface observations should direct you to what is unobservable. If you cannot see the source then what is observable should direct you to the answer, It should be reverse engineered from what is observable. Do I need to quote Doglioni again? You have 89 years of efforts to fit Arthur Holmes' 1927 model to what is continually developing on the surface as a completely different series of causes and effects. How long are you going to keep trying to pound that square peg into that round hole? Nice, obvious bias on your part. Many others have managed to overlook my horrendous lack of skill and were able to plod through it. By the way, it does compare and correlate the solar magnetic 14C proxy, climate variability and the Japanese earthquake records in time and intensity to those busy little dwarves. So it works, despite its warts. I believe it is an essential ingredient in either model. Do you believe “dry” plate tectonics is possible? Would the standard model work without the ocean basins? But it is an ongoing debate. I found this paper outlining it helpful. http://www.ens-lyon.fr/DSM/SDMsite/M2/stages_M2/Bouffard2013.pdf For me, I consider Venus’ stagnant lid and Earth’s mobile lid a compelling argument for the need of water. That paper on my last post showed of a very early watering of Earth and eliminated for me the likelihood that plate tectonics existed prior. Also neither planet shows evidence of changing regimes for any period of time; it doesn’t appear to switch off and then switch back on later. But Venus could reveal more on this question after future missions have been made. In this model the plate tectonic would begin when the crust was finally capable of sustaining substantial amounts of shear forces from the outward displacement of the mantle and then the compression forces when the mantle subsided once again. A shallow ocean would supply a means to cool and strengthen the crust, allowing the process to begin, and more important, become a continuous cycle. "The first subductions probably began during that time long ago when all that existed was proto crust beneath a shallower ocean." "Any evidence for this?" Oh yes I see, it is so obvious due to the specificity of your question. The record of mantle oscillations suggests they have been occurring for 545 million years. I’m going to assume the planet has always oscillated from its earliest beginnings with plate tectonics beginning long after when the crust could finally withstand the dynamic load forces applied to it by the oscillations. Well, let’s stop there for a moment; this is a perfect example of why I think the standard model is overrated. http://ceas.iisc.ern...h_geology06.pdf Gravitational potential energy of the Tibetan Plateau and the forces driving the Indian plate Attreyee Ghosh, William E. Holt Department of Geosciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11790, USA Lucy M. Flesch* Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC 20015, USA A. John Haines† Bullard Laboratories, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0EZ, UK ABSTRACT "We present a study of the vertically integrated deviatoric stress field for the Indian plate and the Tibetan Plateau associated with gravitational potential energy (GPE) differences. Although the driving forces for the Indian plate have been attributed solely to the mid-oceanic ridges that surround the entire southern boundary of the plate, previous estimates of vertically integrated stress magnitudes of 6–7 1012 N/m in Tibet far exceed those of 3 1012 N/m associated with GPE at mid-oceanic ridges, calling for an additional force to satisfy the stress magnitudes in Tibet. We use the Crust 2.0 data set to infer gravitational potential energy differences in the lithosphere. We then apply the thin sheet approach in order to obtain a global solution of vertically integrated deviatoric stresses associated only with GPE differences. Our results show large N-S extensional deviatoric stresses in Tibet that the ridge-push force fails to cancel." . . . ."there is no complete dynamic explanation for this large GPE of the Tibetan Plateau and the relatively fast movement of the Indian plate. There is no apparent down going slab attached to the Indian plate that might assist in driving the plate into Eurasia through the slab pull mechanism" . . . . . . . . . "However, the ridge push, or vertically integrated deviatoric stress magnitude, which is 3 1012 N/m (Richardson, 1992; Harper, 1975; Lister; 1975; Parsons and Richter, 1980), is not sufficient to satisfy inferred stress magnitudes of 6–7 1012 N/m that result from GPE differences between the Tibetan Plateau and the surrounding lowlands (Molnar and Lyon-Caen, 1988). An additional force is required to explain the disparity between the excess GPE of Tibet relative to that of the mid-oceanic ridges" . . . . Conclusions; . . "It is clear that something is missing as a driving force that does not have its source within the lithospheric shell." Well, the standard model's convection model seems to be unable address the reality of this research. Would you please to the best of your abilities explain how convection can lead to the levels of GPE needed to produce the world’s mountain ranges? So here now is another very difficult question for standard model to answer. Add this one to the other two; 1. How does the material in the mantle convect? 2. How mantle dynamics and plate kinematics are linked at the surface? And now; 3. How does mantle convection produce the required levels of GPE in the crust? We all know already the standard model is incapable of dealing with this reality. Poor little Gnomes. Mantle oscillation in this model will produce massive loads of GPE. When the mantle is slowly raised the divergent boundaries are slowly being filled, then after several million years the mantle moves down again and the ridge infill will begin loading the crust with GPE. The level of GPE is determined by the length of the expansion period and the quantity of the MOR material that was put in place during it. This value will then be balanced against the length of time and the degree that the mantle subsides. This resulting GPE drives the planet’s subduction and during rare occasions produces global periods of mountain building as was explained in post 422 and repeatedly explained throughout this thread. OK, you saw that image, the description said; “When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries. As it failed under the increasing pressures it became a convergent boundary as one edge subducted under the other.” In that diagram, a compression ridge is a mountain range, the subduction that followed is no less similar to what N. America is currently doing in overriding the Pacific Plate. And what is seen here; https://www.iris.edu/hq/NSFProposal/Volume2/Lith.pdf Lithospheric Layering in the North American Craton Huaiyu Yuan (Berkeley Seismological Laboratory), Barbara Romanowicz (Berkeley Seismological Laboratory) "Recent receiver function studies detect structural boundaries under continental cratons at depths too shallow to be consistent with the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary (LAB) as inferred from seismic tomography and other geophysical studies. Using the new results from our regional surface wave tomographic inversion for the North American upper mantle shear wave structure, we show (Figure1) that changes in the direction of azimuthal anisotropy with depth reveal the presence of two distinct lithospheric layers throughout the stable part of the North American (NA) continent [Yuan and Romanowicz, 2010]." . . . . ."American craton may be exceptionally simple, the application of this tool to other continents should provide further insights on the assembly and evolution of cratons worldwide." The crust would take the path of least resistance, and only change its subduction angle when required to add one more layer under the existing craton. At some point it stops when the craton's thickness exceeds the available GPE and the plates abilities to do so, the resulting plate angle produces instead the currently observed Island Arc subduction regime. And that’s fine, if you feel that model satisfies all your questions about plate movement and mountain building great. I’m not satisfied, hence this model. Beating dead horses, eh. Well because, if you happened to notice that Huaiyu Yuan et al paper I showed above and in my last post, it described a very similar scenario. “reveal the presence of two distinct lithospheric layers throughout the stable part of the North American” It appears from the above description the early subduction was likely very flat, and when you also consider these rocks sometimes date back from 2 to 3.5 billion years, this model’s contention that as these layers were added to the underside of the ones above them, they were gradually pushed deeper and then rose again as the upper portions were eroded fit rather nicely to the observations as well. In the Grand Canyon’s Great Unconformity the Tonto Group is overlying the Vishnu Basement Rocks where there is a gap of around 1.2 billion years between the 550 million year old Tapeats Sandstone and the 1.7 billion year old Vishnu Basement Rocks. “As this cycle repeated the areas of crust where large scale lamination of two and then three and so on layers of subducting crust had been placed would begin to press those lowest layers deeper into the mantle, farther than ever before. The more complex tectonic processes that are now observed today rely still on the simple outer core thermal cycles described above. The continents have evolved into cratonic structures that are still built, moved and destroyed by the simple mechanism that the model provides.” Does this somehow sound out of line with the Huaiyu Yuan et al research paper? Would you not agree that the 1.2 billion years’ worth of missing material from the GC Great Unconformity was destroyed through erosional and tectonic processes? Well, you’re mixing your model with mine, mine has the displacing mantle, but I’m not getting sucked into that abyss of sorting the two out for you. And PT has a long way to go. The show is not over by any means or measurement. But more importantly, that 1.2 billion year's worth of missing continental material above the 1.7 billion year old Vishnu Basement Rocks indicates that the continental material is being removed as the craton is being slowly raised toward the surface by what appears from that Huaiyu Yuan et al paper is additional layers of crustal material from below, material BTW that is probably younger than the material above it. Gnome calls Dwarf . . . . Go! Gnomes! And, based on the issues raised by Ghosh et al and Doglioni et al, I’m going to need those three questions answered along with some predictions of observations for the mantle convection and mountain orogeny when you get a chance, you know, some clear and understandable series of causes and effects like I did in post 422. Or I’m going to pound you about it with every post. The standard model is under as much scrutiny as this model is, if you keep demanding answers and then refuse to produce evidence that the standard model can produce the answers to those three questions and predictions as accurate as this model did in post 422, then you will lose. As of post 422 this model is more than one up on the standard model's mantle convection. Here they are again; 1. How does the material in the mantle convect in regards to Doglioni et al? 2. How are mantle dynamics and plate kinematics linked at the surface in regards to Doglioni et al? 3. How does mantle convection produce the required levels of GPE in the crust in regards to Ghosh et al?

I believe I just did in post 454. I didn’t claim there had been. I‘m simply answering the question raised by billiards, how did/does subduction originate? Perhaps you know the answer? In regards to the earth’s magnetic field increasing in strength, the outer core’s liquid iron wouldn’t increase in temperature? No I haven’t due to the rather nice fit the model has to surface geology, it was built in a top down fashion and this fits the surface geology rather nicely, it is the simple approach to the problem. Use what you can see to deduce what you can’t. Rather than the “think of some sort of unseen movement and think you can math your way to the surface” as is the current situation. These two posts give a nice example of this model's abilities. But they are long, but that is how I make my counter argument and show the model's strength. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry891454 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry900283 Subtle clues in the solar magnetic and Japanese earthquake records . . . . . . I’m so tempted to bomb you with a wall of text and graphs, I can hardly contain myself! You should just read the post, It’s long, you’ll roll your eyes when you see it. But it will outline it pretty well. I did make an error on one of the graph sources, ice core not 14C, can’t go back and fix it though. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry815114 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267746567_Early_solar_system_Early_accretion_of_water_in_the_inner_solar_system_from_a_carbonaceous_chondrite-like_source “Eucrites provide a substantially earlier data point, which suggests that the source of Earth’s water was present in the inner solar system very early,~8 to 20 million years after CAIs (15,16). This evidence moves back the time at which the terrestrial water reservoir is thought to exist and have been available for accretion. Additionally, this reservoir was present between 1 and 2.4 AU and perhaps throughout the inner solar system. Late-stage addition of water to planets from outer parts of the solar system is therefore unlikely to have affected the water budgets of inner solar system bodies.” And this a news story on the same research. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141030-starstruck-earth-water-origin-vesta-science/ Those mountain ranges are on subduction zones, they would not exist but for subduction. Is this some kind of trick question? The post said; “Eventually the magnetic field energy lowers and the outer core contracts placing the crust in compression against the most recent deposits of seafloor. The first subductions probably began during that time long ago when all that existed was proto crust beneath a shallower ocean. When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries.” I took the liberties to assume the first skim that formed on that early Earth’s surface was made of lighter less dense “slag” type crust compared to later more chemically complex mineral varieties that would have formed as these stacked sections were gradually forced deeper in time. Eventually they would come up as the upper layers were eroded away as the post expresses. I doubt they would have the durability to do anything at a sharper angle, they are slag, they would just pile up like a train wreck or slid over or under one another. I think you should read it again. “When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries. As it failed under the increasing pressures it became a convergent boundary as one edge subducted under the other." And there's no reason that the crust could not fracture next to a convergent boundary or anywhere else, becoming a new divergent boundary tension relieving mechanism and staying one as long as there is a convergent compression relieving mechanism/s somewhere to counter the need to process the crust as the GPE waxes and wanes. I do these things in hopes it will cause the reader to stop and read the wiki’s or other quotes instead of just skipping over them and make an argument about something that would have been explained by it. And also all of this ends up on my website or comes from it first, and that site is for regular people, you know us simple folk that don’t know the lexicon of geologists. They are continually being eroded away from the top down and all sides. They are continually driven over oceanic crust. Interesting isn’t it. They seem to be slowly moved up as they are worn down. Lithospheric Layering in the North American Craton Huaiyu Yuan (Berkeley Seismological Laboratory), Barbara Romanowicz (Berkeley Seismological Laboratory) "Recent receiver function studies detect structural boundaries under continental cratons at depths too shallow to be consistent with the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary (LAB) as inferred from seismic tomography and other geophysical studies. Using the new results from our regional surface wave tomographic inversion for the North American upper mantle shear wave structure, we show (Figure1) that changes in the direction of azimuthal anisotropy with depth reveal the presence of two distinct lithospheric layers throughout the stable part of the North American (NA) continent [Yuan and Romanowicz, 2010]." . . . . ."American craton may be exceptionally simple, the application of this tool to other continents should provide further insights on the assembly and evolution of cratons worldwide." Earth is a little over halfway to the end of its habitable-zone lifetime but I would venture to guess plate tectonics will go a ways longer. But I see what you mean; I may work on that some more and see what I find. I may change that on my website depending if they can substantially survive to the end of PT. Maybe so, but I like how easily my model works through everything. A very simple idea. It’s the model T of PT. For 545 million years it has oscillated at least 56 times. "The boundaries occur with an approximate 10 million year frequency (9.8 +/- 3.1). Each boundary was generated during a tectonic episode interpreted to reflect a mantle-driven, plate tectonic reorganization and consequent changes in regional stress fields. Such episodes likely lasted for a few million years and were separated by longer intervals of relative tectonic quiescence. There are indications that the recognized tectonic episodes affected basins throughout the world.” I will stick to my model's suggestion that they are solar magnetic in origin, the timing is fairly consistent, the increase/decrease in the planet's magnetic field generating components could produce the mantle displacement. You can see the subtle influence of the Sun on the proposed mechanism in this post. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry815114 But have a go at it, you might find a better idea than anyone else.

Wiki is everything that is italicized. The "we" and everything else including the drawings is mine. "We are rather certain that the continents in question were once joined, so we have a rather good analog to compare other plates against." I took liberties to assume that everyone but the crazy people believe the Atlantic was created when the single supercontinent Pangaea broke-up. So you can see now this model covers a time period of billions of years. And is quite relevant in regards to it.

Posts like this really make me pessimistic about the future of mankind, these people that believe and spread these notions have been born and raised in modern societies. And this content is consumed by an ever growing number of those in the third world . . . . . . there are poisonous storm clouds on the horizon and they're not chemtrails coming from the back of airplanes.

Because you didn't do as I had asked. It starts out with me posting what is in my opening post and half of page 1, then reiterating what's in many other posts. And of course you would have follow up questions or objections that have also been ask by others and I get sucked into repeating more content. That would be what I pointed out for you to read. With this thread at 23 pages, why would I repost what is a sizable amount of content because one person demands it. Ummm . . . . .No, do you possibly recall me posting something like this in my last post; "this model showed they also match 56 boundary sequences going back 545 MY, each episode lasting several million years, that are, as the paper said, the result of the mantle's cycling and that are also well documented to have occurred globally." And see my response to billiards. Pot calls kettle Please see post below. Ummm . . . . .No, you have broken model. OK. How's this; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry843598 Posted 25 December 2014 - 10:37 PM I wanted to post on this thread when it was originally started. But it would have been considered thread high jacking because I will use my model as a solution. The thread now looks to have been sitting idle long enough that I would like to take a crack at it here. The key to subduction zones can be derived very easily using this model. This is a minimalists approach. This model simply requires that the temperature of the molten iron of the Earth's magnetic field generator will vary over million year time periods. An increase in energy will always include an increase in temperature. The temperature increase will in turn always produce thermal expansion of the molten iron. This will displace the mantle and produce strain energy in the form of heat at the crust/mantle boundary. The slow increase in the mantles circumference will require the crust to separate and adjust to release the continual tension. These tension relieving mechanisms are the mid ocean ridges located where the crust could not sustain itself against the shear forces displacing it from beneath. Eventually the magnetic field energy lowers and the outer core contracts placing the crust in compression against the most recent deposits of seafloor. The first subductions probably began during that time long ago when all that existed was proto crust beneath a shallower ocean. When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries. As it failed under the increasing pressures it became a convergent boundary as one edge subducted under the other. As there were no continents yet the subduction was very flat, providing the genesis for the formation of the first proto continents. As the cycle repeated, the slow expansion added additional magmatic material into the divergent boundary now known as a mid ocean ridge. Then when the cycle changed to a cooler outer core the new material would leverage the opposite edge of the adjoining crust further under the overriding section. As this cycle repeated the areas of crust where large scale laminations of two and then three and so on layers of subducting crust had been placed would begin to press those lowest layers deeper into the mantle, farther than ever before. http:// en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Craton An associated class of inclusions called eclogites, consists of rocks corresponding compositionally to oceanic crust (basalt) that has metamorphosed under deep mantle conditions. Isotopic studies reveal that many eclogite inclusions are samples of ancient oceanic crust subducted billions of years ago to depths exceeding 150 km (90 mi) into the deep kimberlite diamond areas. They remained fixed there within the drifting tectonic plates until carried to the surface by deep-rooted magmatic eruptions. If peridotite and eclogite inclusions are of the same temporal origin, then peridotite must have also originated from spreading sea floor ridges billions of years ago, or from mantle affected by subduction of oceanic crust. During the early years of Earth's existence, when the planet was much hotter, greater degrees of melting at spreading oceanic ridges generated oceanic lithosphere with thick crust, much thicker than 20 km (12 mi), and a highly depleted mantle. Such a lithosphere would not sink deeply or subduct, because of its buoyancy and the removal of denser melt that in turn increased the density of the residual mantle. Accordingly, cratonic mantle roots are probably composed of buoyantly subducted slabs of a highly depleted oceanic lithosphere.These deep mantle roots increase the stability, anchoring and survivability of cratons; this makes them much less susceptible to tectonic thickening by collisions or destruction by sediment subduction. The greater depth and heat in combination with whatever water and minerals that were brought with the crust were processed into gradually more complex petrologic examples. These first layers of ocean crust that were raised from below out of that ancient ocean have long since eroded away as the newer igneous rocks came up under them from the depths below. The more complex tectonic processes that are now observed today rely still on the simple outer core thermal cycles described above. The continents have evolved into cratonic structures that are still built, moved and destroyed by the simple mechanism that the model provides. The “key” to subduction in our contemporary geology can be deduced by carefully examining the observable evidence. The Atlantic oceanic plates are connected to their adjoining continents. We are rather certain that the continents in question were once joined, so we have a rather good analog to compare other plates against. The Pacific plate is no longer connected to the Asian continent, and we could expect that a model that could explain why the Atlantic has not separated (yet) and why the Pacific has separated would be making predictions of observation quite well. The shear forces that the outward displacing mantle applies to the plates are what cause the plates to fracture. Then as these cycles continue they will establish convergent boundaries.

You must be joking? Let's imagine I'm standing next to you and shining a bright light on a my last post. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry815114 Did you not read my last post? Hell, The last three even? Do I need to repost them?, and all the posts I referred you to? Do you know what those number at the top of the page are for? So you still haven't read the last several pages and the very well supported arguments I made of the Atlantic MOR? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry900283 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry891454 In that series of posts I made a series of observations that were clearly supported by the overwhelming evidence of the Atlantic MOR was at or near the surface of the ocean during at least two occasions, one of them at the same time that the Himalayan, Andean and other mountain ranges were forming around the world. That, I think, is what would be considered global, No? Then this model showed they also match 56 boundary sequences going back 545 MY, each episode lasting several million years, that are, as the paper said, the result of the mantle's cycling and that are also well documented to have occurred globally. OK, one more time. I want you to take a deep breath and concentrate on this while you read it reeeeal slowly. “Fifty-six, large magnitude sequence boundaries have been delineated in the Phanerozoic succession of Arctic North America. The characteristics of the boundaries indicate that they were primarily generated by tectonics. The boundaries occur with an approximate 10 million year frequency (9.8 +/- 3.1). Each boundary was generated during a tectonic episode interpreted to reflect a mantle-driven, plate tectonic reorganization and consequent changes in regional stress fields. Such episodes likely lasted for a few million years and were separated by longer intervals of relative tectonic quiescence. There are indications that the recognized tectonic episodes affected basins throughout the world.” You should realize that you need to deal with those two research papers to argue these oscillations are not a global phenomena. You can now back to your argument based on willful ignorance of the what is posted on this thread. And I still wait for you to make even one prediction of observation using the standard model that would explain every prediction of observation this model has made on this thread. How about making just one, maybe the Atlantic MOR rising to the surface for several million years at the exact same time as those other mountain ranges were forming. That would be great! I'm sure everyone would like to see some rigor out of that tired old standard model of yours.

Hi Rob, have you not read any of the last several pages of this thread? Do I have to repost what has been already argued and supported in conversations in the last three pages? I do not believe the current standard model of mantle convection is a realistic solution to solve the almost cryptic history of this planet's surface. The reason for mantle convection being the long sought viable solution for this planet’s surface is simple, there were not any other viable alternatives. http://www.researchg...ure_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 number of predictions of observations that can be generated by this paragraph is remarkable. The 3-4 million year oscillations match the periodic movement of the N. American continent over the Yellowstone complex that lies below it, and the Pacific Plate’s periodic movement over the Hawaiian hotspot are just a few and when combined with other research papers make a very robust argument, such as in post 422 and 426 on page 22. . . . . . . please don't make me repost or, worse yet re argue the same points. When I first posted the Bonatti et al research paper above I was in the middle of a rather contentious debate on a prediction about the Atlantic MOR. That paper with several others solidified the cause and effect to make the Bonatti et al observation a piece in a series of causes and effects. The oscillations can be shown that they are a globally synchronized crustal movement by the Bonatti et al paper and this one below. http://www.geoconven...c_Tectonics.pdf Episodic Tectonics in the Phanerozoic Succession of the North American Arctic and the “10 Million Year Flood” Ashton Embry, Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, aembry@nrcan.gc.ca Benoit Beauchamp, University of Calgary, Calgary, bbeaucha@ucalgary.ca Keith Dewing, Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, kdewing@nrcan.gc.ca James Dixon, Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, jdixon@nrcan.gc.ca Conclusions “Fifty-six, large magnitude sequence boundaries have been delineated in the Phanerozoic succession of Arctic North America. The characteristics of the boundaries indicate that they were primarily generated by tectonics. The boundaries occur with an approximate 10 million year frequency (9.8 +/- 3.1). Each boundary was generated during a tectonic episode interpreted to reflect a mantle-driven, plate tectonic reorganization and consequent changes in regional stress fields. Such episodes likely lasted for a few million years and were separated by longer intervals of relative tectonic quiescence. There are indications that the recognized tectonic episodes affected basins throughout the world.” “A given tectonic episode began with the initial uplift of the basin margin (start of base level fall) and ended with the collapse and marine flooding of the margin (maximum flooding surface). The sequence boundary was generated during the tectonic episode and represents the time of maximum uplift and basin ward extent of the unconformity.” So those two previous research papers confirm the crust is being globally moved upwards and would suggest they are in synchronized time periods, one metric of the mantle states by 25mm a year. "the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr" This thread has been down this road already. If you read the last 4 pages you may save a lot of repetition in post content. In fact, I would start at post 348 on page 18, that would bring you up to date and save a lot of time and trouble.

Then you are approaching this very broad and lengthy dynamic model from disadvantage.