Some help for the TC model

Ugh, give me a bit, I must release my frustration, I clicked the back button on this page instead of another one moments before I would have submitted. I had a critique of good length, so I will redo it.------------------

Meert, is there an area on the internet explaining the equation or must I ask you questions on variable expression (I don't think I need the calc or physics explained, I believe, though the [numerical] input is where I need assistance).------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-25-2002]

"JM: Well, you told me you and I were at the same level of understanding. Is that assumption now incorrect?"
--If I might quote myself from another thread:

quote:

---

...as for my assertion that basically 'were on the same level' with Joe, It was not meant in the context as everyone is refering. I interpereted Joe's post as that it seemed he believed there are spreading centers taking place on continents producing new continental mass(If this were so, it would have been quite an ignorance of geology), which I did not think that he thought. So I asserted that I was on the same level as he in this question. I am most sertaintly not on the same level 'period' with him.

---

------------------

"JM: What do you think is happening in the East African rift? The Rio grande rift?"
--Continents are diverging. Soon there will be another ocean in the East African Rift (the Red sea I belive), not a continent."Actually, I don't know how you concluded that this is what I was talking about, but so be it."
--Different posts such as these entertained my interpretation which was incorrect:

quote:

---

Secondly, TC has a rather myopic view of magnetism that is focused solely on the intensity fluctuations on the ocean floor. He ignores all the physics behind the reversals and the ocean floor structure itself and the corroborating sections on land. It needs to be hammered into his head that if he wants his hypothesis to be taken seriously, he must develop a coherent hypothesis that fits all the observations, but I think his main goal is simply to argue without regard to the details.

---

quote:

---

Sorry, but I don't follow your logic. Remember, the polarity stratigraphy is corroborated from land and sediment records. You need to include the land record in your model

---

"The East African rift has added some mass to the continents (Kilimanjaro and Mt. Kenya come to mind), so rifting can add mass to continents (contrary to your suggestion)....however that is an aside."
--I am aware, my interpretation of your previous assertions was that it adds continental mass just as it adds mass to sea-floor, a different 'addition of mass' mechenism."Are you now saying that you cannot answer the questions I posed?"
--I didn't assert this, I asserted that I would need some questions answered on variable input, possibly if I could see an example of the equation."I don't know of any internet site with these equations. The symbols are all defined along with their units in this thread as is the solution to the integral so you should have at it."
--So you will not bite my head off if I am to ask questions? Some of them were answered by you and Joz.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-25-2002]

"JM: Not at all, but that in itself leads to some issues. You have presented a half-cocked hypothesis on a subject (which you now admit) you don't understand fully."
--It wasn't presented as conclusive."Most of us try to understand something before we present foolish ideas."
--I would highly doubt they are any more 'foolish' than the theory on planet formation or the nebula hypothesis at this point. (besides it being your opinion) I am pretending that we are a bit more equal than a bunch of arguing nap-nap dog-eat-dog debaters here and present the ideas and see how it is worked out and find its consequences and what refinement is needed."Just about everything you've presented with regard to geology has been naively incorrect and inconsistent. That is because you don't know the topic well enough yet to make reasoned arguments."
--I have presented very little inconsistant, let alone incorrect assertions in geology in my discussion with you."Work on answering the questions I posed here and explain why the oceans today are more than 50 meters deep when your hypothesis predicts that the oceans would only be ~50 meters deep."
--Emphesize on the latter, what exactly is it you mean.------------------

Don't worry Joe, I didn't forget about it, the Global Flood is one of my favorite discussions. So lets see, regarding your equation, I was going to either ask you a series of questions, then I had another thought that could would be much quicker and easier. Instead of me asking you questions on how to express the variables in your problem, It would be very much help if you could create imaginary variables and insert them into the equation with their correct form of expression (refering to a number in miles/kilometers, Centegrade/Ferenheit/Kalvin, etc.). Also, it is important to know that I can't just imput these variables off the top of my head, I would have to obtain the information and research as I am in the progress of doing to know sufficiently correct estimates.-------------------

"JM: Making sure you don't forget. I understand it would be very easy for you if I supplied the variables; however, you need to gain insight into the math and the physics behind the equations. Therefore, I think it best that you trudge through it on your own. That way, you input your own variables and you generate your own model. We can discuss the nuances of your model once you present it."
--Hm.. well I guess you missunderstood my post, I am not questioning the physics, but the way variables should be expressed such as my example of meters, feet, kilometers, centegrade, kalvin, etc. Do you see what I am getting at? I had just looked over your paper at http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/oceans.htm, I found that you answer my questions at your reference 7 as to the form of expression. Though Velocity, what unit of measure should be used, the same for age, mantle temp, average age of subducted crust, and at what depth is mantle density taken at?------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-24-2002]

--Well lets see, Joz said that I should use SI units, unfortunately it was only a bit helpful in temperature. However I am still concerned with age and age of subducted crust, should it simply be years? or millions of years (written as 6,000,000 or 6?) I haven't been able to apply physics to these types of geophysical equations so I am not all too sharp here, apparently there are no educators at the school that I attend that are qualified or understand the geophysics. And velocity, I don't think that you would use m/s. As well as the logic used to define the variables for Mantle temp and density. I would guess that it would be taken at measurements of reasonable ocean lithospheric crust depths, maybe 3300 kg/m³, a variable I have seen at times in lithospheric dynamics for mantle density (is it an average?). The answers to these questions are of course above me right now, and I would like to get it.--Maybe there is a text-book reference explaining the lithospheric dynamics you know which could help me in this topic, as well as other equations for figuring the effects or causes of tectonic plate actions. Doesn't have to be expensive, just reliable information.--I also need to develope calculations on how the oceans above spreading boundaries would be reacting to this to obtain a variable for the amount of heat produced. Then I can make a model which was attempted in gene and my discussion here: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=8&p=4------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-06-2002]

"SI unit for time is the s, density kg/m^3, temp Kelvins. There are no imperial measurements such as miles & gallons. A quick search should procure a list of Standard Internationale units."
--Yes I have known this. Though you really use seconds for your age? Thats a very massive number.------------------

"TC do the work or admit defeat..."
--I had thought I had already shown that this has evidently indicated my failure in this particular converstation, basically I'm in a hole untill I can dig myself out.--Joe, here are my variable inputs for equation which I obtained after some research:-->P_m - Mantle Density - w - Density of water (assuming 4^oC or pressure overcomes the variation due to temperature) = 1000 kg/m^3
A_v - Coefficient of thermal expansion = 3*10^{-5 o}K-1
T_m - Mantle Temperature (as if it were a plume, mantle upwelling) = 1573.15K - 1773.15K
T₀ - Surface Temperature = 373.15K
K - Thermal diffusivity = 1 mm^2 s^(-1)
X - Distance from center = 3000(?) meters
V - Estimated Velocity = 1.5 m (linear)/year, 4.109589 mm/day, 0.1712328 mm/hour, 0.0028538812 mm/min, .0000475646879 mm/sec (.0000000475646879 m/sec)--Thought you could have a look-see before I put myself through more trouble------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-11-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-11-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-11-2002]

"JM: TC, You can find what I used for my model on the link provided. I don't want you to duplicate my work, I want you to defend your own model. Seems to me that 1.5 m/year opening for the Atlantic won't quite do it on a 6000 year old earth. In fact, if you attribute the rapid drift to the flood, you not only end up with a shallow ocean, you end up with an extremely small ocean as well using your velocity."
--Some of your variables are the same or close to mine, though yours was not my reference. Thse are some links I found which I used to find my variables: http://maps.dsc.unomaha.edu/Maher/GEOL2300/week10/exp.html
http://www.tcd.ie/Geology/Courses/ewf/lecture4.html
http://www.geophysik.uni-frankfurt.de/~schmelin/meltpap.html
http://jaeger.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/msandifo/Publications/Manuscript s/Brown_Rushmer/Brown_Rushmer.html
http://www.unb.ca/courses/geol1001a/lec-8.htm--And I don't know what my variables will show as of yet, I havent done the work yet. Also, I calculated an estimated velocity by the assumption that from ridge to continental crest is approx. 3000km. And so in figuring that:

quote:

---

V - Estimated Velocity = 1.5 m (linear)/year, 4.109589 mm/day, 0.1712328 mm/hour, 0.0028538812 mm/min, .0000475646879 mm/sec (.0000000475646879 m/sec)

---

--I am sure that the converstions here are fine though for 1.5m/year, I used 4500 years, thus 4500y/3000m = 1.5m? Or am I missing something simple/obvious?--I hope we can go somewhere with this.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-11-2002]

..you know what, I think I found it..is it just me or is 'm' supposed to be 'km'? ok, I might want to slap myself. Let me reitterate. silly me. I was wondering why my velocity was so very slow.--It should be:X - Distance from center = 3000 (kilo)metersV - Velocity = 1.5 km (linear)/year, 4.109589 m/day, 0.1712328 m/hour, 0.0028538812 m/min, .0000475646879 m/sec (.0000000475646879 mm/sec)Thus:(edit)--Also, I still must ask you, wherever this is going to go. Do you know of a reliable geophysics text-book that goes over these types of equations and similar type information/data?------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-11-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-11-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-11-2002]

"Yes, I do. Geodynamics by Turcotte and Schubert is what I teach from. So far all you are doing is duplicating my work which already shows the problem you will face. What you need is a new model in order to get a deep ocean quickly."
--Thanks for the reference, it looks nice and half.com has a good price for it (within my range) so I might be able to get ahold of it. Also, was this ocean depth we are looking at or basalt thickness or something along that line, I'm skimming through your article but can't seem to find this pinpoint.------------------

"JM: Well, the title of the page is a good hint!"
--Well sure a hint, but was just making sure. I will have to get more in-depth information to figure out what may be different in the flood scenario, or if it would be the same and thus would have a major problem. I'm going to order it monday (tomorrow) off of half.com, seems to be a good price so i'll hope it is worth it. http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=1061983562&domain_id=1856&meta_id=1--After I do some reading we will be able to have a much more effective discussion.--BTW did baumgardner do any profiling on sea-floor topography such as you have, and if so what is wrong with his calculations, or did he not address it?------------------

"JM: As far as I know, he did not deal with it. He was more worried about subduction and simply said the Atlantic ocean opened as a result of subduction elsewhere. It's one of many problems with Baugardner's model. It's also what happens when your religion leads you astray!"
--This is the only calculated graphing I found of his: http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonicsfigures.htm--I don't think he addresses sea-floor topography on a large or appropriate scale though.--Also, I just ordered the text-book on Geodynamics you recommended. Should be shipped Tuesday or Wednesday. I'll keep you posted on when I get it and what i'll read before we continue a more insightful discussion.------------------