Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Heat release from tectonic friction
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 33 of 102 (684100)
12-15-2012 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by TrueCreation
12-15-2012 2:01 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
I calculated the energy dissipated by reducing the velocity of the lithosphere assuming all of it goes into heat. Where this heat is dissipated depends on where the resisting forces are. We could consider this resisting force to be friction along interfaces, but heat dissipated will quickly generate melt, reducing friction and thus the resistance to slip. Thus, you can't dissipate this much heat along thrust faults that quick. The most 'reasonable' expectation would be that mantle convection and subduction loses power and is stopped by the increasing rigidity of the mantle (e.g., Baumgardner's runaway model). Thus the 'frictional interface' wouldn't be localized and could be distributed throughout much of the lithosphere and asthenosphere.
Those are al resistive forces.
You are trying to calculate all the possible Forces that resist the motion.
The energy that it takes to move the weight of the plates through the distance of whatever is the case, over a period of unit time ought give us the answer, right?
E = 1/2mv^2?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 12-15-2012 2:01 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by TrueCreation, posted 12-16-2012 2:56 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 67 of 102 (684653)
12-18-2012 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by TrueCreation
12-16-2012 2:56 AM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are al resistive forces.
You are trying to calculate all the possible Forces that resist the motion.
The energy that it takes to move the weight of the plates through the distance of whatever is the case, over a period of unit time ought give us the answer, right?
E = 1/2mv^2?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, this is the formula I have used. The distance is only important inasmuch as it is related to velocity.
All the required varibles in the equation can be discovered rather easily in that the mass of the lithosphere has been estimates, I am certain, and we know how long it was between the first time "all the waters under heaven were gathered together into one place" in the event of Rodinia and the time lapse until Pangea formed.
That would give us the time from the break up of the very first super continent surrounded by one singular panthallassic Ocean until the same condition appeared with Pangea.
All these other idea suggested above are lame and unworkable, at best merely confirming that the sum energy used over the time must be less than all these combined resistive forces in play.
End of thread????
Unless you have a number as an answer...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by TrueCreation, posted 12-16-2012 2:56 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by TrueCreation, posted 12-18-2012 4:54 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 69 of 102 (684922)
12-19-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by TrueCreation
12-18-2012 4:54 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
I have already estimated the heat released by cooling of (presently exposed/active) oceanic lithosphere in Message 25 as on the order of 10^29 J. Then, in Message 28, I estimated the heat released from slowing plate tectonics from 0.3 m/s to 0 m/s as on the order of 10^22 J. Obviously the first number is more important for YEC's because it is far greater and, unless you want to appeal to magic, must be transferred through the oceans. Do you dispute this?
Dispute is the wrong word.
I tend to believe your figures of 10^22Joul, because it seems straight forward and simply physics.
I am not so sure of "estimated the heat released by cooling" because there seems to be too many mitigating factors that must be estimated or inferred.
Of course, if this were important to me as it seems to be to you who are writing a paper on the matter, more attention to your mathematics and deductions could convince me, I am sure.
But if the two numbers were closer, the cooling would essentially be a double check against the mechanical energy, which I tend to accept based on the confidence in your physics for E = mv^2/2.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by TrueCreation, posted 12-18-2012 4:54 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by TrueCreation, posted 12-19-2012 3:56 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 70 of 102 (684926)
12-19-2012 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie
12-07-2012 8:29 AM


Catch 22
I'm looking for some assistance (read as please do the calculations for me and tell me the answer) in determining the heat effects of all of earth's tectonic activity, or as much of it as is known, being crammed into 4000 years. I have a sneaking suspicion that it would have melted the crust.
What factors would need to be taken into account and what would be the effects of the other forms of energy released?
In order to sell this argument to YECs they would need to accept tectonic plate movement and the theory of cyclic movement that created Rodinia, then Pangea millions of years ago.
Since to them that would be an oxymoron, to use facts based upon the assumption of a very old Earth to disprove the belief in a very young earth.
Right?
They would have to accept your premise of a old earth before your evidence was useful to disprove a very young earth.
Since Gen 1:9 explicitly reports that, at least once, "all the waters under heaven were collected together into one place," a de facto initial case of Panthallassic ocean and Pangea existed.
We need show the time necessary to separate the continents as we observe them today.
We need show the rate these plates move apart and how long it took to form the seven continents of this moment.
That ought be easier.
Time, not energy.
But it also shows they did not read Gen 1:9 and realize it refers to Pangea.
Just that ought be enough to show YECs they misinterpret Genesis.
Gen. 1:9 And (Father Nature, the first cause), God, said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, (Panthalassa), and let (Pangea/Rodinia), the dry land appear: (composed of the Seven Large Tectonic Plates):
1. North American Plate,
2. Pacific Plate,
3. South American Plate,
4. African Plate,
5. Eurasian Plate,
6. Anartic Plate,
7. Australian Plate),...
...and it was so.
(Gen 1:9)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trixie, posted 12-07-2012 8:29 AM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Eli, posted 12-19-2012 12:47 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 73 of 102 (684990)
12-19-2012 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by TrueCreation
12-19-2012 3:56 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
It interesting.
I would expect that the actual energy necessary to move the plates a specified distance over a specific time interval would be higher than the measurement of the transfer energy which is a conversion from the former mechanical form, and it would also be a sum that ignores the energy required to push up the massive rock layers and other geological effects.
Perhaps I would discover that I am not analyzing the problem correctly if I had time to read your links, but isn't the mechanical energy the real determinant here?
It ought be larger by far than the thermal conversions you are adding up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by TrueCreation, posted 12-19-2012 3:56 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2012 1:53 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 77 of 102 (685048)
12-20-2012 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by TrueCreation
12-20-2012 1:53 AM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
Unless the Earth contracts or is acted on by an external force, kinetic energy available for plate tectonics at the surface originates in a conversion from the internal energy by mantle convection.
Oh, I get it.
Its like spagetti moving in a boiling pot as the salty water bubbles, right?
The bubbling energy is there all the time.
The qustion the OP asks then seems to guess what the temoerature would be to mive the spagetti faster than say 600 million years, and form Pangea in 4000 years.
If the YECS wold entertain Pangea as a theory, the whole point of the question woulkd be moot.
But, supposing that they did accept a 600 million year duration, compacted into 4000 years, your calcuklations would expect the thermal energy of the moment to raise the present temperature.
Is that what we are saying here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2012 1:53 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2012 2:41 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 84 of 102 (685272)
12-21-2012 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by TrueCreation
12-20-2012 2:41 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
I think so. In the "spaghetti pot" of the Earth, the kinetic energy of motion is small compared to the huge amounts of heat removed by conduction at the surface of the boiling water/convecting mantle.
Yeah, I see the point,...
The problem seems to be informingthe YECs that Pangea happened 600 million years ago, though, so we can do the math.
I don't know if they will deny Pangea, but how could they accept it if the earth is only 6000 years old??
Or, maybe they do accept Pangea but think it happened around 6000 years ago?
If so, your case has merit in informing them it just could not be.
But there is NO hope this will change minds, since the atheists on the other side ar just as bad when they hear that Pangea supports Gen 1:9.
Nobody wants the truth if it doesn't conform with their opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2012 2:41 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2012 5:00 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 90 of 102 (685658)
12-24-2012 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by foreveryoung
12-21-2012 8:01 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
Pangaea existed for a wide expanse of time. It started coming together in the carboniferous and was complete about 250 million years ago and started to break apart in the jurassic. I would say that it ceased to exist when there was a body of water completely seperating north and south america from europe and africa, although fragments of it persisted like antarctica being connected to australia for some time.
It would seem better to calculate the time fromthe break up of Rodinia, the first formation that defined a pantahalassic ocean surrounding just one continent, until the break up of Rodinia and the formation of Pangea.
The would be be one whole cycle.
This very first formation took place during the "Neo-archean evening of the Archaean Era-"
"and the Paleo-proterozoic morning of the Proterozoic Era," = i.e.; the Third "Day"...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by foreveryoung, posted 12-21-2012 8:01 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 91 of 102 (685659)
12-24-2012 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by TrueCreation
12-21-2012 5:00 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
1) Well, convincing someone of a certain truth is not my concern if they do not value scientific method.
2) I might go so far as to say that if one does not value scientific epistemology, they deserve to believe lies.
1) Nor is "convincing someone of a certain truth is not my concern if they do not value reading comprehension when telling others what Genesis says."
But I am concerned as a member of society about what people believe when groups form that promote and disseminate erroneous falsehoods.
I believe that Truth is the light into the real world which we can only ignore at our own jeopardy as a nation.
2) They deserve to wallow in their ignorance, but we do not deserve to live in th Poliically Correct culture that they create and use to quiet us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2012 5:00 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024