Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators!
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 61 of 114 (15707)
08-19-2002 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Joe Meert
08-19-2002 4:28 PM


from Joe Meert
quote:
I somehow never noticed those. If the model was absurd before, it now borders on the ridiculous.
I thought it crossed that border a long time ago.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Joe Meert, posted 08-19-2002 4:28 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 62 of 114 (15710)
08-19-2002 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Tranquility Base
08-19-2002 4:10 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
From my readings Baumgardner has a very good plate tectonics simulaiton engine. During the day it is used to simulate mainstream plate tectonics and after hours, after tweaking a few paramters, he uses the same engineto test runaway subduciton.
Sure the engine is fine, the problems come about when tweaking becomes whacking. Face it, Baumgardner is not a geologist. Nor is he 'mainstream' on this issue. Nor does he bother to constrain his model with actual data. He forces the model to fit the myth rather than the data.
quote:
I quoted a plate tectonics guy several months ago saying that deterministic simulations of plate tectonics 'reproduce nothing like' the continental history we have.
Not sure what your point is here. If you are talking about modeling, I would agree. I probably misunderstood what you said earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-19-2002 4:10 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 63 of 114 (15711)
08-19-2002 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Tranquility Base
08-19-2002 4:10 AM


quote:
Tranquility Base
I quoted a plate tectonics guy several months ago saying that deterministic simulations of plate tectonics 'reproduce nothing like' the continental history we have.
Are you talking about this thread?
http://EvC Forum: Mainstream plate tectonics model is nowhere near quantitatively correct -->EvC Forum: Mainstream plate tectonics model is nowhere near quantitatively correct
I looked through it and it looks to me like you got pretty severely criticized for out of context quoting and weren't really able to defend what you posted. I also see that Joe posted my analysis of the magnitude of the heat problem with runaway subduction on that thread. I suggest you look at it again. You should eventually begin to grasp the true absurdity of the boiling flood model considering all that was said there and here.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-19-2002 4:10 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-19-2002 9:55 PM Randy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 114 (15725)
08-19-2002 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Randy
08-19-2002 7:05 PM


^ Read that thread carefully and you will see that my statement was that tectonics has not been deterministically simulated. I quote a mainstream guy stating this in black and white.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Randy, posted 08-19-2002 7:05 PM Randy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 114 (15726)
08-19-2002 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Randy
08-19-2002 9:01 AM


Randy
The whole point of runaway subduction is that it is . . runaway. It is like a chain reaction. Subduction above a certian threshold will lead to further subduction and further heating and so on. How the subduciton got to that threshold is presumably the put-off for you understandably. Nevertheless if, through e.g. accelerated radiodecay, we can get such an initial threshold then runaway subduciton can take it from there.
I'm not saying that runaway subduction must be the answer - it is a possibility and it works very nicely with accelrated decay - if only we didn't kill everything! Further work is clearly needed if this were to become more than just a toy model. I see it simply as a hint in the right direction. Nevertheless the concept of runaway subduction could be completely correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Randy, posted 08-19-2002 9:01 AM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Randy, posted 08-20-2002 12:38 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 68 by edge, posted 08-20-2002 12:55 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 66 of 114 (15734)
08-20-2002 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tranquility Base
08-19-2002 10:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy
The whole point of runaway subduction is that it is . . runaway. It is like a chain reaction. Subduction above a certian threshold will lead to further subduction and further heating and so on. How the subduciton got to that threshold is presumably the put-off for you understandably. Nevertheless if, through e.g. accelerated radiodecay, we can get such an initial threshold then runaway subduciton can take it from there.
I'm not saying that runaway subduction must be the answer - it is a possibility and it works very nicely with accelrated decay - if only we didn't kill everything! Further work is clearly needed if this were to become more than just a toy model. I see it simply as a hint in the right direction. Nevertheless the concept of runaway subduction could be completely correct.

The put off for me is that the boiling flood model necessarily destroys all life on earth as you seem to admit. If runway subduction ever had gotten started on earth we wouldn't be here to discuss it.
As to the heat, think about this. The only way to get such unrealistic mantle viscosities is to get the mantle super hot. Much hotter than it is now. If you do this with accelerated radioactive decay you will cook the earth to death even without runaway subduction as Joe has pointed out. With runaway subduction it just adds to an already insoluble heat problem. In addition to the 10^28 J of released by the subduction process, the entire ocean floor is replaced with the super hot mantle material that is generating even more heat constantly because of radioactive decay. If the radiogenic heating rate were as high as Baumgardner claims why would it ever cool down let alone cool down fast enough so that the sea floor could solidify and contract enough to lower the flood water back down? Even replacing the sea floor with normally hot mantle material will probably cause the release of another 10^28 J or so of heat. As Kurt Wise says, enough heat is released to boil the oceans several times over. Boiling even a small fraction of the oceans will sterilize the atmosphere.
You just don't seem to get it. Baumgardner's boiling flood model is really, really absurd. It is not even a hint in the right direction. Every time I discuss this model more fatal flaws(pun intended) show up. If I were you I wouldn't keep saying "We" when discussing this model until you think a little more about it. It might make some wonder about your ability to think at all at least where the subject of the worldwide flood is concerned.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-19-2002 10:03 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-20-2002 12:56 AM Randy has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 67 of 114 (15735)
08-20-2002 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Joe Meert
08-19-2002 4:28 PM


quote:
From Joe Meert
Heat production in the crust (where most of the radioactive material resides) is variable, but generally units of 1-10 micro-watts per m^3 are used so his values here are overestimates by 10^6-10^7 compared to the earth. Are those numbers correct? I somehow never noticed those. If the model was absurd before, it now borders on the ridiculous.

If I understand the model correctly this magically high heat production rate is what he uses to get the mantle hot enough to reduce mantle viscosity by 10^8-10^9 to get runaway subduction going. He also uses non Newtonian viscosity with power law creep but you need to get thing pretty hot to start the flow going. I think the question I asked TB is an interesting one in this regard. If 0.02 W/M^3 are being generated how did this super hot mantle material cool down by the end of the flood year so that it would contract to let sea levels fall back down? Why didn't it keep getting hotter? It seems to me that a totally replaced ocean floor would take a while to cool even without all that heat being generated in it. Maybe Baumgardner thinks the heat production rate dropped to 0 or somehow went negative the instant the mantle material flowed out over the ocean floor. That would no more nonsensical than most of his stuff I guess. Since you have to violate the conservation of energy to keep the earth alive during the subduction process you might as well violate it big time and have a magic heat sink appear in the mantle.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Joe Meert, posted 08-19-2002 4:28 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 68 of 114 (15736)
08-20-2002 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tranquility Base
08-19-2002 10:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm not saying that runaway subduction must be the answer - it is a possibility and it works very nicely with accelrated decay - if only we didn't kill everything!
Aren't you neglecting one little detail here ... like, perhaps, evidence that either accelerated decay or runaway subduction ever happened? What Randy has given you is evidence that they never happened. Why do you ignore it?
quote:
Further work is clearly needed if this were to become more than just a toy model.
I'm not sure why anyone would conduct this work. If there were evidence that it had happened it might be a more fruitful endeavor.
quote:
I see it simply as a hint in the right direction.
There is NOTHING indicating that this is the right direction. Perhaps that is why research is so lacking, don't you think?
quote:
Nevertheless the concept of runaway subduction could be completely correct.
Not sure how you can simply ignore the facts here, TB. There is nothing to support this statement.
If runaway subduction occured there would be no life on earth. THere is, apparently, life on earth. Therefore runaway subduction didn't happen. It is simple logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-19-2002 10:03 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 114 (15737)
08-20-2002 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Randy
08-20-2002 12:38 AM


Randy
I fully agree with you that the heat is a huge constraint. But there just aren't enough people working on this to rule it out yet. If the entire process of continental drift is carried over decades rather than a year it might all work. With Noah disembarking at a high elevation then the tectonic aftermath of the flood could have gone on for decades afterward (and decades before).
If one spreads the energy to boil the ocean over a longer period it will not boil the ocean!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Randy, posted 08-20-2002 12:38 AM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by edge, posted 08-20-2002 1:03 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 70 of 114 (15738)
08-20-2002 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Tranquility Base
08-20-2002 12:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I fully agree with you that the heat is a huge constraint. But there just aren't enough people working on this to rule it out yet.
That is precisely because it is such a huge constraint. Most rational people understand this and realize that the work to prove runaway subduction would be completely fruitless.
quote:
If the entire process of continental drift is carried over decades rather than a year it might all work. With Noah disembarking at a high elevation then the tectonic aftermath of the flood could have gone on for decades afterward (and decades before).
Are you saying that Genesis cannot be translated literally? Or that Baumgardner is wrong? But no, the amount of heat release, as Randy has shown, cannot disipate that fast. You still poach the human race.
quote:
If one spreads the energy to boil the ocean over a longer period it will not boil the ocean!
Quite an assertion. Remember, we are talking several orders of magnitude greater energy than necessary to eradicate all life on earth. Are you just going to turn on and off such a huge heat engine like a water tap? What is the mechanism for this? Do you have some numbers to support this position?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-20-2002 12:56 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-20-2002 8:57 AM edge has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 114 (15773)
08-20-2002 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by edge
08-20-2002 1:03 AM


Edge
I don't have a problem with Noah disembarking at the end of the flood year at high elevation (as suggested in Scripture) while the flood tectonically sorts itself out over decades and even centuries at lower elevations. Simple solutions like this often exist and that is why it is improper to rule out possibilties with such quick shrugs. Such a Biblically consistent time extension of the flood might easily save the model and account for the actual prehistory of our planet.
PS - 6 generations after Noah we have 'Peleg' who was so named becasue 'the earth was divided in his time'. During this few hundred years longevity also dropped from 600 years or so to about 120 years. Perhaps the dregs of accelerated decay extended through these several hundred years after the flood seperating the continents and depositing the last of the flood layering in the low-lands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by edge, posted 08-20-2002 1:03 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Joe Meert, posted 08-20-2002 9:57 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 76 by Randy, posted 08-20-2002 1:20 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 72 of 114 (15780)
08-20-2002 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Tranquility Base
08-20-2002 8:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge
I don't have a problem with Noah disembarking at the end of the flood year at high elevation (as suggested in Scripture) while the flood tectonically sorts itself out over decades and even centuries at lower elevations. Simple solutions like this often exist and that is why it is improper to rule out possibilties with such quick shrugs. Such a Biblically consistent time extension of the flood might easily save the model and account for the actual prehistory of our planet.
PS - 6 generations after Noah we have 'Peleg' who was so named becasue 'the earth was divided in his time'. During this few hundred years longevity also dropped from 600 years or so to about 120 years. Perhaps the dregs of accelerated decay extended through these several hundred years after the flood seperating the continents and depositing the last of the flood layering in the low-lands.

JM:Can you show me an artificial or real material with the following property?
Thermal conductivity of 2 x 10^10 W/m K
Thanks
This is one of the parameters in the 'runaway subduction' model.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-20-2002 8:57 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by blitz77, posted 08-20-2002 10:08 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 114 (15783)
08-20-2002 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Joe Meert
08-20-2002 9:57 AM


Um, from his article he uses k=4 W m-1K-1, not 2 x 10^10 W/m K. I am interested to know where you got that figure from.
quote:
Parameter values used are rr =3400 kg m-3, pr=0, Tr=1600 K, g=10 m/s, g=1, k=4 W m-1K-1, H=1.7 x 10-8 W m-3, cv =1000 J kg-1K-1, and K=1 x 1012 Pa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Joe Meert, posted 08-20-2002 9:57 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Joe Meert, posted 08-20-2002 10:39 AM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 75 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 08-20-2002 11:09 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 74 of 114 (15784)
08-20-2002 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by blitz77
08-20-2002 10:08 AM


COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD | The Institute for Creation Research
You need to read the two articles carefully. The absurd value is used to get runaway subduction. So how about it, blitz? Can you show me a natural or artificial material with that high of a thermal conductivity? The article you refer to has time scales much too long for ye-creationism. Secondly, Baumgardner states there is no pre-fossil oceanic crust. This is false and ignores the volumes of material formed in ophiolites. Most old ocean floor is subducted but we have remanents of the older oceans. Baumgardner shows his naivete with regard to things geological.
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 08-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by blitz77, posted 08-20-2002 10:08 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 75 of 114 (15786)
08-20-2002 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by blitz77
08-20-2002 10:08 AM


Actually the value k = 2 X 10^10 W m^-1K^-1 is used on page 6 as the value required under the model for it to work. I think that you need to re-read the article, it is in the section titled "Treatment of the Runaway Instability".
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by blitz77, posted 08-20-2002 10:08 AM blitz77 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