Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 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!
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 114 (14844)
08-05-2002 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by edge
07-21-2002 9:44 PM


quote:
Actually, he's not a geologist.
quote:
B.S. Electrical Engineering, Texas Tech University - 1968
M.S. Electrical Engineering, Princeton University - 1970
M.S. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA - 1981
Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA - 1983
If hes not a geologist, is he a geophysicist then?
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by edge, posted 07-21-2002 9:44 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Joe Meert, posted 08-05-2002 6:52 AM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 26 by edge, posted 08-05-2002 11:49 PM blitz77 has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 114 (14953)
08-07-2002 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by edge
08-05-2002 11:49 PM


quote:
However, keep in mind that there are two types of geophysicist: those that understand geology and those that don't. Baumgardner, I assure you, is one of the latter.
I thought mantle convection, dynamics and plate motion goes under the domain of geophysics. Which he most definitely understands, Baumgardner has published articles on mantle convection and dynamics, plate motion, geodynamic earth models since 1982, which is 20 years ago in collaboration with many other famous geophysicists. So he has plenty of experience in this field. That means that he should easily qualify as a person who would know a lot about this topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 08-05-2002 11:49 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Joe Meert, posted 08-07-2002 10:18 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 114 (15685)
08-19-2002 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Randy
08-19-2002 9:01 AM


quote:
The inability of the model to predict a correct sea floor profile, as Joe has pointed out is another example of conflicting data.
However, it closely matches the density profiles given by seismic models, and an argument in its favor is that there is presently no ocean floor on the earth that predates the deposition of the fossiliferous strata. (As in the model it would have subducted into the mantle).
quote:
would call dropping the mantle viscosity by a billion fold more than tweaking. Using totally unrealistic parameters is not tweaking. GIGO. But don't you claim that there are no good mainstream tectonic simulators? I don't know exactly how good Baumgardner's mainstream model is compared to others but it is obviously far better than his boiling flood model.
Not quite a billion, but rather a hundred million. However, the parameters are not unrealistic-
quote:
"yields more than eight orders of magnitude reduction in effective viscosity relative to a condition of zero strain rate. Indeed maximum strain rates implied by the calculated velocities are on the order of 10-4 s-1 --precisely in the range for which laboratory measurements have been made"--Baumgardner
quote:
"How do the parameters used in these calculations compare with those estimated for the earth? The values used for g, g, k, H, rr, cv, Tr, and a in eq. (1)-(5) are all reasonable to within +/-30% for the simplified reference state that is employed. The values used for the Clapeyron slopes for the phase transitions are two to three times too small and so the effects of the phase changes are underrepresented. The most important parameters are the reference viscosity and the threshold strain rate for power-law creep. The reference viscosity leads to velocities prior to runaway that are in accord with current observed plate velocities of a few centimeters per year. The threshold strain rates used are within the power-law creep region for olivine as given by Kirby (Fig. 1). A large uncertainty is the extrapolation of the creep behavior of olivine to the minerals of the lower mantle for which there is essentially no experimental data. The issue is not whether power-law creep occurs in these minerals but what the stress range is in which it occurs. It is likely the threshold strain rate is not many orders of magnitude different from olivine. These calculations therefore seem relevant to the earth as we observe it today."--Baumgardner
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-19-2002]
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-19-2002]
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-19-2002]

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 58 by Joe Meert, posted 08-19-2002 11:06 AM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 59 by Randy, posted 08-19-2002 2:27 PM blitz77 has not 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024