|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6273 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
from Joe Meert
quote: I thought it crossed that border a long time ago. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: Not sure what your point is here. If you are talking about modeling, I would agree. I probably misunderstood what you said earlier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6273 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6273 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6273 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: There is NOTHING indicating that this is the right direction. Perhaps that is why research is so lacking, don't you think?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5706 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: 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. CheersJoe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5706 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3243 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024