Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction?

quote:

---

The mechanism you describe about water from the subducting ocean slab causing melting is not unique to island-arc volcanism. This is the way most volcanos form. The example of island-arc volcanism is not necessary to the point you're trying to make.

---

It is unique to its type of volcanism and is relevant because it applies as a source of melting in CPT. This is not how volcanism is produced at accretionary boundaries.

quote:

---

Edge isn't saying it wouldn't produce significant volcanism. He's asking you how millions of years of volcanism taking place in a single year would look precisely the same as millions of years of volcanism taking place in millions of years.

---

Why would it look different? What aspect of volcanism is inhrerently controlled by the rate of venting??-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

The fact that there is no evidence to support them is NOT my problem.

---

What? Not only was the runaway instability hundreds of kilometers under the earth, but it is long gone..

quote:

---

Yes, I know about this. The problem is that there should be no horizontal compression if the force driving CPT is actually simple gravitational pull-down. Think about it.

---

It isn't just 'gravitational pull-down'. There needs to be a force to first bend the rigid lithosphere down into the mantle. The oceanic lithosphere coliding with continental lithosphere is that deflecting force.

quote:

---

'Could' and 'did' are quite separate concepts. I doubt the first and totally reject the second, based on evidence.

---

"could" is inherent to computer simulations and numerical modeling. And yet we still appraise them as highly useful tools.

quote:

---

Really? So how does Baumgardner assume that the 'instability' will be propagated in the third dimension? Isn't this a rather large assumption?

---

No.

quote:

---

Certainly, but the difference is between brittle and ductile strain. When we are talking about folding, we generally think of it as ductile deformation.

---

Yes, but whether brittle or ductile behavior is exhibited in rock is a question of whether the increasing strain does not relax and continues to build towards the rocks brittle failure strength with little or generally no plastic deformation and fractures (brittle deformation) or is relaxes through creep processes (ductile behavior). Of course, rocks can exhibit both brittle and ductile deformation (eg. a ductile material deforming plastically and then fracturing).I think that the distribution of heat in, saturation, and the structure of the compressed crust are far larger factors leading to whether the rock will deform with brittle or ductile behavior and ultimately result in folding or fracture and faulting. If the confining pressure of rock under question is near the brittle strength of the rock deformation will transition from brittle to ductile behavior.Folded morphology usually occurs in sedimentary as well as in metamorphic rocks. Folding occurs because there are layers of differential elastic strength. A limestone would have greater elastic strength than sandstone at equivalent levels of saturation. The weaker layer may even behave as a Newtonian fluid. When the the bending stress in the elastic member exceeds the rock layer's yield strength it will either fracture or yield plastically. Again whether the bending stresses propogating throughout the layered rocks results in brittle fracture or ductile transformation is going to be understood less if at all by the rate of compressional strain but by the characteristics and structure of the rock layers.Folding in sedimentary rocks is probably better explained in CPT beause of partial lithification from incomplete dessication, allowing for pressure solution creep. In fact we know this is probably the case because minerals of high solubility like quartz are redistributed throughout the folded rock matrix from regions of high stress to regions of low stress. Folding of crustal rock is largely a mystery without pressure solution creep and unless there is data indicating otherwise, I think it is an outlandish assumption to think that old lithified rock with a large surface overburden have much significant saturation. However this incomplete lithification due to incomplete dessication in the early diagenesis of the rock will result in less resistance to ductility.Therefore in the old earth framework, most cases of folding should occur either to saturated unlithified surface rocks, saturated subsurface rocks, and rocks with a significant overburden. Lithified surface rocks will not fold without fracture and unsaturated subsurface rocks without significant vertical compression will not fold without fracture.I think that CPT explains folding quite well.

quote:

---

So, you admit to being vague on the subject.

---

inevitably.

quote:

---

Must have? Why? What is the evidence that it must have occurred?

---

What other mechanism is there to produce the isotopic signatures observed that give the impression of increasing age throughout the geologic record?

quote:

---

Then maybe you should explain again. This is all getting very muddled. You have a bunch of mechanisms that you don't think were connected, but must have occurred. Or maybe not...

---

Well I think ultimately it is currently unknown whether accelerated radioisotopic decay is required for CPT and runaway subduction, but I don't think so. Nevertheless it clearly occured if CPT is accurate. I am not proposing Accelerated decay as a required mechanism, only a possible one, and its only contribution would have been the initiation of CPT. As I have discussed before there are other mechanisms to initiate CPT so it is theoretically therefore not required.

quote:

---

Your thinking is becoming more and more muddled. We have subduction occurring today. So, where is the CPT? More to the point, where is the flood?

---

Subduction is not confirmation (in an "actual" context) of CPT, it is merely evidence. Furthermore, subduction of the current oceanic lithosphere is theoretically a result of CPT (thus evidence for it), therefore it is nonsense to assert that for it to be evidence for it, it must still be occuring.-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

Then you should make an attempt to refute actualism and not imply that we do not believe in catastrophes.

---

Where in the world did I ever say that you did not "believe in catastrophes"?? I never said such a thing.

quote:

---

But if we had thousands of times more hydrated oceaninc crust and overlying sediments being subducted, wouldn't that result in at least a little bit more volcanism? And if not, wouldn't you be chilling the asthenosphere to the point where its viscosity would rise so as to choke of CPT?

---

Your considering two opposite possibilities--either the volatiles introduced into the mantle wedge produce too much melting, or the cold lithosphere acts as a heat sink and causes no volcanism. I would argue that they would balance each other out.

quote:

---

Wow. So ALL of the island arcs, magmatic provinces and the entire oceanic crust of the world being formed in one year would look no different than what we see today. Unbelievable....

---

isn't it? If you haven't noticed yet, I am trying to get you to point to various observations and explain why they could not form as is as would be required by CPT.This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-04-2005 03:52 AM

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

Then you have a problem. I am sorry, but claims such as CPT require evidence. What you need to do is predict what effects CPT would have on the geological record, that would be unlikely to have been produced by normal PT, and then look for those effects. That would be evidence.

---

This is exactly what I said in post 48 that I asked you to read. Furthermore I will restate an assertion I made in that post, "I've said before that uniformitarian geology is so versitile it is hard to invent a geological situation that it couldn't explain with all all[sic] that time."

quote:

---

So, what is that force. Baumgardner relies upon only gravity as far as I know.

---

I don't believe Baumgardner actually modeled the lithosphere actually coming in contact with continental crust. For the initiation of subduction in his models it is assumed that the cold boundary layer that comprises the oceanic lithosphere would subduct when colliding with a continental mass. If you have a problem with this assumption then.. well I don't know what to say.

quote:

---

I agree. However, it would be good to use this tool to make some predictions and then find corroborating evidence. Up to now CPT is only a model and, as far as I'm concerned, it could tell us that the plates floated on petroleum and came from the moon.

---

It could if you modified the parameters. However, Baumgardner used appropriate paramaters so it does not represent a petroleum mantle..

quote:

---

I'm glad that we have your opinion. However, most rock mechanics people would suggest that lower strain rates favor ductile behavior.

---

And if you read what I said you would know that I don't despute this.. low strain rates favor ductile behaviour not by a direct correlation.. it is hardly a geological principle. Maybe I need to restate my assertions, much of which had implications you did not even respond to:

quote:

---

...whether brittle or ductile behavior is exhibited in rock is a question of whether the increasing strain does not relax and continues to build towards the rocks brittle failure strength with little or generally no plastic deformation and fractures (brittle deformation) or is relaxes through creep processes (ductile behavior). Of course, rocks can exhibit both brittle and ductile deformation (eg. a ductile material deforming plastically and then fracturing).

​

I think that the distribution of heat in, saturation, and the structure of the compressed crust are far larger factors leading to whether the rock will deform with brittle or ductile behavior and ultimately result in folding or fracture and faulting. If the confining pressure of rock under question is near the brittle strength of the rock deformation will transition from brittle to ductile behavior.

​

Folded morphology usually occurs in sedimentary as well as in metamorphic rocks. Folding occurs because there are layers of differential elastic strength. A limestone would have greater elastic strength than sandstone at equivalent levels of saturation. The weaker layer may even behave as a Newtonian fluid. When the the bending stress in the elastic member exceeds the rock layer's yield strength it will either fracture or yield plastically. Again whether the bending stresses propogating throughout the layered rocks results in brittle fracture or ductile transformation is going to be understood less if at all by the rate of compressional strain but by the characteristics and structure of the rock layers.

​

Folding in sedimentary rocks is probably better explained in CPT beause of partial lithification from incomplete dessication, allowing for pressure solution creep. In fact we know this is probably the case because minerals of high solubility like quartz are redistributed throughout the folded rock matrix from regions of high stress to regions of low stress. Folding of crustal rock is largely a mystery without pressure solution creep and unless there is data indicating otherwise, I think it is an outlandish assumption to think that old lithified rock with a large surface overburden have much significant saturation. However this incomplete lithification due to incomplete dessication in the early diagenesis of the rock will result in less resistance to ductility.

​

Therefore in the old earth framework, most cases of folding should occur either to saturated unlithified surface rocks, saturated subsurface rocks, and rocks with a significant overburden. Lithified surface rocks will not fold without fracture and unsaturated subsurface rocks without significant vertical compression will not fold without fracture.

​

I think [,therefore,] that CPT explains folding quite well.

---

Therefore, the argument that CPT=high strain rates==>ductile deformation is false, there are plenty more factors to fit in between high strain rates and the resulting type of deformation.

quote:

---

What other mechanism is there to produce the isotopic signatures observed that give the impression of increasing age throughout the geologic record [within the framework of CPT and a younger earth]?

​

Well, how about normal radioactive decay and old ages? Chris, do you really think that mainstream geologists have not thought about this? Do you think they would not have noticed radionuclides could not be explained by normal geological processes? You don't seem to give much credit to your predecessors.

---

My assertion was meant to be valid within the framework of CPT and a younger earth. 'normal decay rates', therefore is not compatible with that framework. I edited my assertion in the quote above to better convey what it is that I meant.

quote:

---

This is all very good for mental gymnastics, but that is all that you are doing right now. You need evidence to go one way or the other.

---

I know this. My assertions and argument is scientifically logical as it reflects on an inherent characteristic of the theory--that of it lacking development. Science is tentative.

quote:

---

You have major problem here and that is that the evidence you give is also evidence for mainstream PT

---

So what! It is also evidence for CPT!

quote:

---

which is currently OBSERVED and explains the geological record more than adequately. You need to give us something concrete and diagnostic of CPT if you want to be taken seriously.

---

Why are both the Solar Nebula and Capture theories for the origin and evolution of the solar system taken seriously? There is no unequivocally diagnostic evidence for either! They are both scientific and taken seriously because they both explain much of the data, despite the popular bent is to the solar nebula theory. Now you will probably note that CPT has so much data it hasn't yet explained, and you are right. I would argue that it is possible that that is due to underdevelopment.-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

But your model for producing magma is by adding water to the lower crust and mantle. So, how do you want it? Cooling the mantle and outer core by rapdily subducting cold oceanic lithosphere along with water-loaded sediments will quence the very heat instability that Baumgardner needs. If we take 4000 kilometers of oceanic crustal and supracrustal materials and send them to the CMB, what happens to the thermal instability?

---

This is well known and has been considered in Baumgardner's models:

quote:

---

The criterion for runaway to occur is that the time constant associated with viscous heating be much less than the characteristic thermal diffusion time of the layer.

---

Furthermore the volatiles released in the mantle wedge are very little and only serve to lower the melting temperature of surrounding mantle rock and allow it to well to the surface.

quote:

---

At the same time you HAVE to dewater the huge crustal load somewhat; and you HAVE to produce virtually all of the volcanic rocks in a year, more or less.

---

Well every drop of water injected into the mantle probably is not going to get released into the surrounding mantle and subsequently well to the surface. Evidently there are pressure and possibly timing dependencies as ocean island volcanism only occurs above where the plate reaches a certain depth (125-175 km). [quote]And this wouldn't be any different from the volcanism in quantity and composition that we see today? I think you are sweeping a major problem under the rug here, Chris, by simply ignoring it. But just think what evidence this would be, if you could find it!
Well im not sure. I don't see where the quantity and composition of volcanism would be different than that observed from CPT. Furthermore I don't know where the quantity of volcanism has been predicted against the expectations of PT.

quote:

---

You also have another fallacy here in that it is not up to me to find evidence or reasoning for CPT. That is your job, if you want to promote the model.

---

I am arguing in its favour far less than you are arguing against it. Assertions against CPT should be supported just as much as assertions for it.-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

I promised you geomagnetic data? Are you sure? That doesn't sound familiar at all, I don't know where I'd even find geomagnetic data, and making statemnts first with promises of data later is not the kind of thing I tend to do. In fact, it's the kind of thing I do my darndest to discourage. Let me check my posts in this thread...

​

Nope, I don't see where I promised you any geomagnetic data. If you're sure of this then you're going to have to remind me what you're talking about.

---

Ok you might be right that you didn't promise me "geomagnetic data". What you did is assert way back in post 13 that:

quote:

---

Why is CPT inconsistent with magnetic reversal data?

---

I am interested in seeing what you have up your sleeve in this instance since I have been very interested in and have studied the geomagnetic record a bit. I don't see where it is inconsistent with CPT, so I want you to explain to me why it is.

quote:

---

Chris, do you remember a few years ago when people were telling you to walk before you run, in other words, to start with introductory texts and work your way up instead of starting with technical papers? That was good advice. Your error in thinking that modern geology characterizes itself as uniformitarian derives from accepting the characterizations of Creationist sources (there is no other source of this particular piece of misinformation) and from having to correct information because you started with the complicated instead of the basic. It explains the huge gaps in your geological knowledge. It's why you view geology as a bunch of disconnected facts instead of a unified whole where each set of facts reinforces and confirms many other sets of facts. If you get yourself an introductory text on geology, you'll find uniformitarianism near the beginning in the section outlining the history of geology. You will not find it explained as a principle of modern geology.

​

If after doing your research you somehow manage to conclude that you are not "erroring" then God help you.

---

Oh please, I didn't tell you that you should learn to walk before you run when you were completely confused as to what fundamentally causes subduction. If I had misrepresented uniformitarianism to some extent, fine, but because my errors are not widespread I find it ridiculous to therefore conclude that I have skipped over the fundamentals of geology. I am not lashing out at you in any way, but I would consider it offensive to be known as a typical creationist drone that only reads YEC literature..Furthermore, you might be interested to know that modern geological thought is refered to as "The New Uniformitarianism" and "catastrophic uniformitrianism" in some of my geology texts.Please note what you said in post:

quote:

---

Unless you use the term to refer to classical uniformitarianism (there's no other kind), you are using it incorrectly. You can't define terms to mean whatever you want them to mean. You've been informed of your error, please stop. No one here is applying misleading adjectives to CPT, please don't apply misleading adjectives to geology.

---

Italic emphasis mine.Ref: Lemon, Roy R., Principles of Sedimentology, 1990. pp. 29-31.
and: Ager, D. V., 1981, The nature of the stratigraphical record, 2nd ed., 1981. pp. 122.It appears I was not quite as wrong as you imply. God help me..

quote:

---

Of course they're not accurate. They weren't intended to be accurate. The exercise was to find a lower bound on the smallest amount of required energy, because if this lower bound was sufficient to melt the earth's surface, then more accurate calculations that included all the continents (instead of just North America) and that included all the processes (instead of just the initial acceleration) could only be worse. But the lower bound proved to require very little energy with respect to the entire ocean, let alone with respect to the entire earth.

---

Right. My statement was basically restating in agreement with you, that they were not meant to be accurate. I wasn't trying to state it as if it were a 'problem' with your calculations.

quote:

---

Please, Chris, don't be ridiculous. You have no way of knowing. You must at least provide a coefficient of friction, a calculation of the surface area of contact, provide an estimated speed, and then perform a rough calculation to give us a ballpark figure.

---

Yes, I guess that is just my guess then! The amount of heat would have to be extraordinary and I don't envision basal friction to be even close to significant. One because the dissipated heat would probably go into the process of continental delamination and also because there is no solid contact between the elastic lithosphere, underlying lithosphere, and mantle (see post 17 and Chiroptera and I's preceeding dialog). Material at the boundary layer would deform plastically. I presume that continental motion is induced by basal drag from the convecting mantle.

quote:

---

This raises a further question. If the base of the continental crust experiences friction with the underlying lithosphere, then it can't be mantle currents providing the impetus for tectonic plate motion. What is your proposed mechanism for plate motion? Are the plates being pushed by the magma from the oceanic ridges?

---

What? Friction and basal drag due to a convecting mantle can occur simultaneously. Look at it this way. If the lithosphere moves a distance x and underlying flow the mantle moves mantle material a distance y, then if 0 < x < y then basal drag has succeeded in carrying the lithosphere with the current by a factor y-x.

quote:

---

And how is this 10*28 joules figure calculated? It seems like a lot of heat, and if measured against the ocean it actually is. It's enough heat to raise the temperature of the entire ocean by 19,000 oC.

​

But measured against the mantle it isn't very much. The specific heat of granite is 800 joules/goC (much, much higher than water), and it's density is 2600 kg/m3. In a rough approximation, it's enough heat to raise the temperature of the top 10 miles of the earth (1.11x1021m3 or 2.89x1027 grams of granite) by about 10oC, which doesn't sound like much of a temperature increase, but in order to spread throughout the mantle as you claim there has first to be a hell of a temperature gradient beginning at the heat's source, which you haven't revealed in any more detail except to say the "runaway process itself".

​

I'd like to hear how the 10^28 joules figure was calculated, and I'd like to hear a description of the runaway process itself that causes the heat.

---

The heat is calculated from the release of gravitational potential energy and viscous heating especially around ascending and descending plumes. You can read all about the runaway process in Baumgardners papers and they are available online as I am sure you know. I couldn't explain the processes better than he does.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-08-2005 11:55 PM

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

Ah, then you agree that the explanatory powers of plate tectonics are pretty convincing.

---

Yup. However this method of explanitory power is a theoretical weakness, not a strength.

quote:

---

And you don't see this as a shortcoming?

---

Of course I do. That Baumgardner couldn't model mantle behavior in infinite resolution is also a shortcoming. oh darn..

quote:

---

I thought you said that they did not come into contact...

---

Not in his 2D models. As I explained it doesn't matter.

quote:

---

Including mantle viscosities? Heat flows? Frankly, I don't know since I have relied on others who have the patience to actually get beyond the cartoonish diagrams. Face it, Baumgardner is a crank.

---

Cartoonish diagrams? lol. Evidently you haven't seen much computer geophysical research. Yes including mantle viscosities and heat flows. I agree, frankly you don't know.

quote:

---

Clearly, however, you begin to crowd the field when you enter the region of strain rates hundreds of thousands of time higher than observed rates. There just isn't as much room for ductile strain and we should see much more shattering than we do. Just my opinion of course.

---

Strain rate is very different from actual strain. Your opinion is conjecture.

quote:

---

Sorry, but your logic is poorly founded. You do understand, don't you, that some logic is fallacious. In fact, scientifically speaking, your logic is fallacious because it lacks any support other than the fact that you wish it to be so.

---

You've completely missed the mark. The logic is sound. underdevelopment=underexplanation is inherent. Where underdevelopment is high, underexplanation will also be.

quote:

---

And it is also evidence for last Thursdayism.

---

Well your the one who said that it was evidence for PT.. I just assumed that you actually thought that mattered.

quote:

---

YOu have a reigning paradigm that has great explanatory power; and yet you think that another theory, based solely on wishful thinking and faulty logic, should be treated on the same level. This is scientific chaos. It will not be accepted.

---

Not a surprise coming from someone who can't 'get passed the cartoonish diagrams'.

quote:

---

Do you realize the implications if we were forced to entertain every crackpot idea that came along? Should we still be debating a flat earth? If you were to have your way, I will insist that we discuss phlogiston on these same pages. And I expect government funding to support my research, as well.

---

CPT has not been conclusively refuted. I agree it is ulatimately outrageous relative to PT theory, but hell im just enjoying seeing how far CPT will go. It hardly equivalent to the flat earth or phlogiston and deserves far more credit than you will give it.

quote:

---

I am unaware of these theories and can only take your word that they are either controversial and taken seriously. My guess is that they explain some facet of the universe better than competing theories, even if they do not explain everything.

---

they explain about the same data. But the capture theory seems a little more 'out there', so the Solar Nebula is more popular.

quote:

---

Actually, there is. For instance, the combination of radiometric dating and paleomagnetism is pretty diagnostic for plate tectonics.

---

it is evidence in its favor. CPT can also explain this, however the answer begs more questions which have not been answered.

quote:

---

Well, there you go. I'll bet there is some evidence that they explain better than competing theories. The point is that CPT really doesn't, despite your opinion.

---

I never said CPT did explain the data better than PT.

quote:

---

Well, then you'd better get to work. My advice is, however, that you are wasting your time, breath and money. The only reason for CPT to be considered is the desperate hope for an explanation of the biblical flood. Baumgardner admits this himself.

---

Scientific direction is not always a deductive result of data analysis. The origin of many scientific achievements I would consider crazy if not crazier than Baumgardner's impetus to research CPT. We are all human and you have no idea how I gauge my intellectual achievements--whatever the outcome of CPT, I will not consider it 'waisting my time'.Don't you ever wonder why our discussions always go to shit like this? If your not going to take time to look into what we are discussing, you really don't have much to say.-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

First of all I'm not asking about Baumgardner's models. I'm asking you why increasing subduction rates by hundreds of thousands times does not affect the quantity, style and composition of volcanism.

---

Because I don't yet see much reason to think that quantity, style and composition of volcanism would be expected to be much different than that observed. In some cases I don't yet see how we could determine that in a generalized sense.

quote:

---

Hold on! Do you really think that the only place volcanism would be affected is at convergent bounaries? This is silly.

---

What is 'silly' is the way you interpret everything I say. I didn't say this.

quote:

---

Why do the Icelandic volcanoes produce so much in the way of toxic gases, then?

---

I'm not aware of the details of the atmophile geochemical component of extrusive volcanics so I can't address this problem with CPT in much detail. However I think the gas component of icelandic volcanics is merely fractionated from mantle rock.

quote:

---

And you think that the mantle wedge is the source of volatiles? Sorry, Chris, this won't wash.

---

No. However that is a method of introducing new volatiles into the mantle.

quote:

---

(Sigh) Chris, I don't care if it's a one percent efficient conversion. You still increase the consumption rate of oceanic crust hundreds of thousands of times.

---

Yup.

quote:

---

Chris, you have increased the rate of oceanic crust consumption by hundreds of thousands of times. YOu have increased the rate of crustal production likewise. NOt only that, but you have put a significant part of the entire planet's volcanic rock production, since the beginning into a one year (more or less) time frame. ARe you seriously telling us that this would be no different than what we see today?

---

No. Im telling you I have not seen anything that would objectively determine some things to be different than what we observe today. Where are the geophysical models with direct rate dependencies?I know of some numerical modeling of various geodynamic processes with rate dependencies like with the thermal evolution of oceanic lithosphere, but in that instance, the method and rate of heat transfer could dramatically increase. Where are similar models for the quantity of surface volcanism?

quote:

---

Which is exactly what we have all been doing here. The record of volcanism is just one argument against CPT. And you have not handled it very well.

---

Well I don't think you have handled explaining just how problematic it is. Why does PT expect exactly the quantity of volcanism occurring and why would the record of it differ in CPT?-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

Where does the energy come from to move continents fast enough to fit within the biblical flood time frame? (It is not acceptable to start "stretching out" CPT beyond the biblical flood time frame because then we have the "enough water to cover Everest problem". Also, how is CPT different from plain old PT if we allow this explanation?)

---

Probably mantle convection and basal drag.

quote:

---

What is the disposition of the excess kinetic and heat energy, assuming question 1 is satisfied and CPT does in fact occur?

---

what excess kinetic and heat energy?-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

Mantle convection explains PT, it does not explain CPT. You have to get enough energy to move the plates to approximately where they are now within the biblical flood time frame - a couple of years at most.
Moving continents around at high speeds is going to result in excess energy in the form of kinetic and heat energy. This is the basic principle of the conservation of matter and energy.

---

Um, no. You are just refering to the energy required, not the 'excess' energy--ie, the energy beyond that which can be considered 'too much'. Furthermore, if you have not been reading the thread, we have been discussing this (see post 104). I don't see why I can't get "enough" energy and I can't see why there would be too much energy, but evidently you have done some calculations? If not your just guessing--and my guess is as good as yours. If you can't supply calculations, can you at least explain why there would be insufficient energy to move the continents and/or why there would be excess energy as a result of them moving? I've briefly touched on the geodynamics of their movement in post 104.-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

There are at least a couple significant problems. The first is that you require almost all the magnetic reversals of the past half billion years to take place in a single year. If geophysicists are correct that the earth's magnetic field derives from processes related to mantle flow within the earth, then you require these processes to operate at a rate that is at least several orders of magnitude higher than at present. This is the same solution that CPT people propose for everything, that all the geological events of the past half billion years actually happened just the way the evidence says it happened, only millions of times faster. There's no evidence of this, and because it so obviously violates known physical laws it only takes a second's consideration to discard such a ridiculous notion.

​

The second is that a rapidly changing magnetic field is not consistent with the radiometric data that says they only happen on average every half million years or so. I know CPT proposes dramatic changes in physical laws, but there is no evidence that any such changes ever happened, or even could happen.

---

CPT does not propose changes in physical laws, with the exception of radioisotopic decay. And actually there is a very good plausible mechanism for rapid reversals in CPT. Research and computer simulations by Glatzmaier et al.(1999) strongly suggest a correlation between the frequency of geomagnetic reversals and a heterogenous heat flux across the core-mantle boundary (CMB). Lateral variations in temperatures in the lower mantle can vary by hundreds of degrees Kelvin over distances of 10^3 km, however convection in the fluid outer core is much more efficient at mixing material and distributing temperatures evenly(Glatzermier, 1999); lateral temperature variations in the core therefore do not exceed 0.001 K. This causes variation in patterns of heat conduction from the core to the mantle, resulting in slightly cooler core fluid, on average, below cool mantle, and warmer fluid below warm mantle. "These forces, together with Coriolis forces (due to the component of the fluid flow perpendicular to the Earth's rotation vector) and Lorentz forces (due to the component of the electric current perpendicular to the magnetic field), drive complicated time-dependent circulations, providing a convective heat flux within the core that accommodates the imposed non-uniform conductive heat flux out of the core at the CMB."(Glatzmaier et al., 1999)Glatzmaier et al. performed computer simulations with eight different, time-independent, patterns of radial heat flux through the CMB. Among the variable CMB heat flow simulations was one case of uniform heat flow and a case with heat flow values based on seismic tomography of the lowermost mantle for today's Earth, the remaining cases imposed simple radial patterns of heat flow. Much of the behavior of the geomagnetic field in several of the simulations resembles that seen in the paleomagnetic record very well (eg. significant decreases in the dipole moment during reversals and excursions). In the simulations there are observed correlations between variable heat flux's and the frequency of geomagnetic reversals over time.During CPT, mantle material is redistributed through large scale convection rather quickly. Oceanic lithosphere subducted into the mantle also reaches the CMB. This would result in lateral variations in temperature much higher than that currently observed. In Glatzmaier's simulations, the thermal and time constraints on various presupposed parameters relevant to the evolution of the geomagnetic field would therefore be far more extreme than would have to be considered in any simulation of the geodynamo during CPT. For instance, in Glatzmaier's simulations the total heat flow out of the core is maintained at 7.2 x 10^12 W. The magnetic dipole diffusion time is assumed to be constant at 20,000 years. For all cases they fixed the peak heat flux variability at 44.6 mW m-2 relative to the mean. All of these values would be expected to change significantly during runaway. The geometry of the outer core would also be expected to deform as cold mantle material sank to the CMB and hot mantle buoyed to the upper mantle.It is well substantiated in Glatzmaier et al.(1999) that a variable temperature distribution across the CMB may very well correlate with the changing frequencies of geomagnetic reversals over time. This would explain the observed trend seen in the geomagnetic polarity timescale (GPTS) over the 160 Myr time span.Buffett [1999] asserts:
"...the simulations clearly demonstrate that changes in heat flow conditions can strongly influence the behaviour of the magnetic field. In particular, the change in behaviour appears to be sufficient to explain the variations observed in Fig. 1.[showing the change in frequency of magnetic reversals over ~160 My of geologic time](Buffet, 1999)"Ocean basins open and close and mantle convection occurs on the same timescales (10^8 years) as the trend in the geomagnetic data appears to operate on. The redistribution of cold oceanic lithosphere in the mantle, especially around the CMB coupled with the heat dissipating processes of releasing gravitational potential energy and of viscous heating of downwelling and upwelling plume heads will without a doubt result in extreme compositional and temperature variations accross the CMB. To this a rapidly reversing geodynamo comes at little surprise and is therefore evidence for CPT. The geomagnetic data itself cannot be evidence against CPT without the direct aid of radioisotopic data. CPT therefore explains the geomagnetic data, but not the radioisotopipc data as far as I am aware.Lowrie, William, Fundamentals of Geophysics, 1997
Glatzmaier et al. Nature, Vol 401, 28 October 1999. pp 885-890.

quote:

---

Oh please, I didn't tell you that you should learn to walk before you run when you were completely confused as to what fundamentally causes subduction.

​

Say what? Is this like where you thought I promised you geomagretic data? I'm just going to chalk this up to another one of your fantasies.

---

No, you clearly were confused and I responded to point out your confusion here [italic emphasis and "percy:" and "me:", mine]:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Percy: Not to mention that the oceanic crust is less dense than the mantle you have it falling into. This would never happen. Subduction only occurs because the oceanic crust, being more dense than continental crust, is forced beneath it and down into the mantle where it eventually becomes part of the mantle.

---

Me:Um, ok, no this is not accurate. The oceanic lithosphere has a material composition that at equal temperature is less dense than mantle rock, but the lithosphere is colder than mantle rock by over 1000 K and this results in a higher actual density. Subduction is not only a result of collision with continents whose crust is less dense than oceanic crust. It always has a higher density than underlying mantle. The reason it doesn't just subduct somewhere else is because the lithosphere is a rigid platform. The gravitational forces due to negative buoyancy would have to exceed its elastic strength. Yes collision with less dense continents cause subduction because it causes the plate to flex and bend toward the mantle, but the ocean plate does not try to bouey underneat the continents--it has negative buoyancy relative to the mantle and so continues to slide into the mantle. Have you heard of the tectonic force of slab pull?

---

You were clearly confused on a fundamental of geology and geodynamics.

quote:

---

It's nice that you think that, but you haven't shown yourself to be a particularly astute or accurate interpreter of the literature. "The New Uniformitarianism" is the subtitle of a book. "Catastrophic uniformitarianism" is an oxymoron.

---

Tell that to Lemon and Ager.. You might want to inform them of their error...

quote:

---

Uniformitarianism is not a concept of modern geology. Modern geologists do not think of themselves as uniformitarians.

---

I know that..thats why it isn't just "uniformitarianism", it is "modern" or "the new" or "catastrophic" uniformitarianism.

quote:

---

I don't own these books, Chris. If you'd like to provide some lengthy excerpts I can give you my opinion about what they're saying, but I doubt uniformitarianism is making a comback. Modern geology's view of the manner and rates at which geological processes operate is far too varied for the uniformitarian label to be accurate or appropriate, and that's been true for a long time.

---

This is known. That is why it isn't just "uniformitarianism". The modern view is a a mix of 'uniformitarian' and 'catastrophic' geologic behavior:

quote:

---

Ager (1981) suggested that what is emerging now is a new doctrine in geology, perhapse described as "catastrophic uniformitarianism" and summed up by the phrase "the history of any one part of the earth, like the life of a soldier, consists of long periods of boredom and short periods of terror."

​

Lemon, Roy R., Principles of Sedimentology, 1990. pp. 31.

---

The second chapter of the book is entitled "The New Uniformitarianism". Maybe you should find his e-mail address and tell him that he is erroring by advocating oxymoronic doctrines..

quote:

---

The rest of your post fills in some of the missing details in your view of how things work, though you didn't describe how the 10^28 joules figure you threw out there was determined...

---

I already told you, it is the total heat production in the mantle due to the release of gravitional potential energy and viscous heating. I further told you that you should look it up for yourself in Baumgardners work as it is available online.. If you do not have the intuition to do a little research to answer your own questions, don't expect me to do it for you.

quote:

---

and none of your heat arguments were quantitative

---

What heat arguments? Explain and refute.

quote:

---

but since your proposals still require violations of physical laws and since you still have no evidence for this, CPT is a non-starter.

---

physical law(s)? If you have anything besides the radioisotopic decay rate (which you appear to have since you said 'laws', plural), I suggest you present it.-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

Chris, it's your theory, so you or someone on the CPT side is supposed to have done the calculations. Stop cricisizing others for trying to fill in the gaps that you have so far neglected to fill in. It's your theory, it's incumbent upon you to provide the calculations.

---

The onus is always on the person making the assertion, whether it be for or against. Someone else was criticizing CPT saying that it would produce too much heat through basal friction. The assertion was given as is and without backing. It is not required for me to refute the assertion if it has not been shown to really be a problem. It has not been show to actually be a problem. Im sorry if you don't like the burden to be on you because I know none of you really care about doing much of your own research but the onus is still on the person making the claims.I have countered the assertion or 'guess' with another 'guess' based on how basal drag would effect deformation.

quote:

---

But that's the whole problem, Chris. You're guessing because you have no evidence.

---

Um no. I issued a guess in response to a guess. Apparently, that means neither have evidence for or against basal drag resulting in excess frictionaly dissipated heat! This is what I have been trying to say. Therefore, the initial assertion against CPT is meaningless and unsubstantiated.

quote:

---

And because your guess requires violations of physical laws for which you also have no evidence

---

How does my guess regarding basal drag and the type of deformation occuring at the boundary layer violating physical laws?? Do you know what you are talking about?

quote:

---

Please supply the missing heat calculations so that we may examine them.

---

When I have time I might do this independently (if I can figure out how to do such a calculation), but I won't at the moment because I don't need to. I don't need to counter a straw man argument with more than just straw.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-09-2005 03:59 PM

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

Then I guess, you just left it out of your logical train of thought. You do realize that as the OC disappears at fantastic rates that it must also form at fantastic rates. Does this not require an increase in the rate of volcanic eruption?

---

I presume so.

quote:

---

Yes, MERELY gases and aerosols from a small (compared to CPT) eruption that altered the climate of Europe, thousands of miles away in 1789(?).

---

I am not aware of this as I have said earlier that I have not studied it in detail.

quote:

---

Now remember that you want to increase the size of this eruption many thousands of times and then have it occurring all along at least several branches of mid ocean ridges. Does this really make any sense to you? Where do you see this in the geologic record (this would be evidence)?

---

What would this produce differently in the geologic record that could be used as evidence in either favor?

quote:

---

I'm not sure that I need a numerical modle to tell me that if OC is being destroyed at millions of square kilometers per year that it also has to be forming at the same rate.

---

I didn't say that. I said you need a numerical model that shows you how the rate of these processes directly effects the observed quantity of volcanism in the geologic record because you are saying that the quantity would be different if subduction and seafloor spreading were faster. I am not debating the constant radius of the earth and the relative rate of subduction and seafloor spreading.

quote:

---

Because it is based on actual OBSERVED processes. CPT predicts oceanic crust of virtually one age and all of it 4ky ago, and most of the plantet's volcanism occurring in one event.

---

A quantity is a reference to a number. Lets see numbers.

quote:

---

I have no real time to answer the rest of your post right now. Suffice it to say that you are at a disadvantage in having no diagnostic evidence for CPT. Believing in something may be good, but stubbornness is not necessarily a good trait.

---

So much for refuting my points re: folding, but I thought you were wrong anyway.-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

hope you don‘t mind when I join the discussion. I‘m not an expert in the area of CPT, therefore feel free to correct any misconceptions, but I have the same doubt as the other participants in this discussions: I think CPT has a heat problem.

---

Hi bernd! Im glad to see you join the discussion. I agree there is a heat problem with CPT. Of course, however, for us to accurately scrutinize CPT in this context we should notice that it is not "THE" heat problem as there are several different sources of heat thought to have existed during CPT. Some of the major sources of heat:[1] - That from the runaway subduction process itself: Gravitational potential energy and viscous heating of mantle material[2] - Cooling of the oceanic lithosphere and crust[3] - Cooling of extensive terrestrial intrusive (plutons, batholiths) and extrusive volcanism.[4] - Presumably radiogenic heat from radioisotopic decay at the required accelerated rates.There are other lesser heat generating processes which should ultimately be looked at in detail (eg. basal drag of lithosphere and heat dissipated from surface geomorphology), however these are probably minor contributions. I have not done much research on the contribution of heat from terrestrial intrusive and extrusive volcanism, however I think that that would be significant (and those sources should be quite relevant as they are close to or on the earths surface). The source of heat from radioisotopic decay is the most significant and most damning source of heat to be released during CPT. This source of heat probably are not directly part of the tectonic processes occuring during CPT, however if CPT occured so must have radioisotopic decay so ultimately it cannot be ignored. To be quite honest, I don't think there is even one possible mechanism, practically observed or theoretical that can quench this massive source of heat energy. Therefore I also conclude that the only possible method of getting rid of this energy is to never have produced it in the first place--ie, the physics of quantitative heat generation in the decay process must be effected by whatever accelerated it. This may or may not be theoretically possible, but I would not know as I have no real grasp of nuclear or quantum physics.Each source of heat can be discussed in isolation toward a positive or negative conclusion for CPT. My current understanding leads me to believe that the heat generated by the geophysical processes associated with runaway subduction itself can be rather easily be explained by the heat being redistributed by convective mixing and conduction in the mantle and subducted lithosphere. I will address the second source of heat (that of the cooling oceanic lithosphere) below. Volcanics--I don't know. I am convinced that the problem of radiogenic heat lies in nuclear and quantum physics. Put simply, if altering the decay rate of radioisotopes of at least the earths major heat producing radioisotopes does not effect quantitative heat production, CPT and a younger earth are just without a doubt, doomed and dead. However if it is possible, the greatest problem facing CPT today will be disseminated. For this reason I don't like bringing up radioisotopic decay in the context of excess heat because it is not a problem lying in geology, geophysics, geochronology, etc. I conclude it is a damning problem and I cannot solve it.

quote:

---

When I understand Baumgardner correctly, he assumes that the whole ocean floor we see today has been build during the flood. This would mean, that the oceanic lithosphere with a mass of 5*10^22 kg ( under the assumption that the area of the oceans measures 3,61*10^8 km^2, the average thickness of the oceanic lithosphere is 50 km and the density of magma 2800 kg/m^3 ) has been cooled to its current temperature within one year. A short calculation shows that we are talking about at least 2*10^25 kJ, which is needed for the phase change of magma from fluid to solid - assuming that the latent heat of fusion for magma is 400 kJ/Kg. If we add the cooling by about 600 K to get the current temperature profile of oceanic lithosphere, we end up with another 3*10^25 kJ. If we compare this with the heat needed to turn all sea water into steam, about 3,8*10^24 kJ, we notice a problem for CPT.

---

Indeed this is a problem, and one not easily solved. I calculate a release of approximately ~8.36 x 10^27 from the crustal portion:1. The earths mass is = 5.9736 x 10^24 kg.
2. The oceanic crust comprising approximately .099 % of the earths mass, makes its mass about 5.97 x 10^21 kg
3. Specific heat is 1000 J/kg/K
4. So to cool by 1000 K, 5.97 x 10^21 kg would release about 5.97 x 10^27 Joules
5. The phase change from a melt to a solid will also release latent heat. With latent heat of fusion = 400 kJ/kg, the extra heat generated from the entire mass of the ocean crust solidifying will therefore add 2.39 x 10^27 Joules.
6. Total heat is therefore ~8.36 x 10^27 for the oceanic crustI think that calculations of heat production in the crust and the cooling mantle (to ultimately become a coherent part of the oceanic lithosphere) below should be considered separately as the mantle does not phase transfer throughout cooling (hence no dissipation of latent heat). Total heat transfered from oceanic lithosphere below the Moho will thus not consider latent heat.50 km is probably a fair "average" thickness parameter for the oceanic lithosphere when also considering an average temperature drop of 600 K. So to calculate the amount of heat dissipated required to current observations from 43 km of oceanic lithosphere below the crust:1. Mass of 43 km of oceanic lithosphere: ~3.6 x 10^22 kg
2. Specific heat is 1000 J/kg/K
3. So to cool by 600 K, 3.6 x 10^22 kg would release about 2.16 x 10^28 JoulesSo I estimate total heat energy at: (0.836 x 10^28 J)+(2.16 x 10^28 J)= 2.996 x 10^28 J. This is higher than your estimate without considering latent heat, but lower than your estimate after considering latent heat. However I have argued that the lithosphere below the crust does not see any phase shifting so there should be no production of latent heat for most of the oceanic lithosphere.I therefore agree--cooling the oceanic lithosphere to its observed thickness will dissipate enormous quantities of heat.As you later assert in your post, conductive cooling of rock takes time--a lot of time! But would it be expected that the oceanic crust and lithosphere be cooled entirely or even minimally by conduction? I think not. I think that the primary means of heat transfer would have been essentially convective. Furthermore, there certainly will not be a gradual transfer of heat as is the case in solid-state conduction. 1400 K - 1600 K mantle rock directly contacting ocean water would be phenomenal, possibly involving almost explosive shock hydrodynamic reactions. Unfortunately I have not seen specific numerical modeling of such a process, but some possible fundamental characteristics of the process have been briefly explained by Baumgardner, et al.:"One of the most prominent problems I have mentioned in earlier papers is how the newly formed ocean lithosphere could cool to its present state within such a short span of time. Discussions in early 2001 with Nathaniel Morgan, a new graduate student at Los Alamos National Laboratory with a background in multiphase heat transfer, led us both to realize that supersonic steam jets were almost a certainty along the spreading boundary between diverging ocean plates during the runaway phase of the catastrophe. Further analysis showed that jet velocities exceeding the Earth’s escape velocity might be possible. In this case, the energy per kilogram of steam escaping to space is sufficient to accomplish the bulk of the lithospheric cooling while the plates are moving apart and do so without depleting the oceans of all their water. At a velocity of 14 km/s, for example, 1 kg of steam has about 108 J of kinetic energy. Removal of this amount of heat is enough to cool 140 kg of rock by 1000 K, for a representative specific heat of 710 J/kg-K. On the order of 1000-1500 m of water would then be needed to cool the present ocean lithosphere to its current state. Although this is a lot of seawater, it is not entirely beyond the realm of comprehension.

​

Another aspect of these jets is that seawater is converted to supercritical steam as the water penetrates downward through the fractured and porous newly formed seafloor, and then emerges almost explosively at the throat of the jet. Although there is some entrainment of water as the jets traverse the overlying layer of ocean water, mixing is minimal, and heating of the bulk ocean is therefore modest. ...To be sure, considerable additional analysis is required to demonstrate to a high level of confidence these supersonic jets can indeed cool the new ocean lithosphere to approximately its present state as it was being formed during the runaway episode. The initial analysis, however, looks promising."From: Baumgardner, John. R., Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: The physics behind the Genesis Flood., Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, 2003.The supposed scenario seems possible to me, maybe even plausible, and I am interested in seeing what further research they do on this topic.Furthermore, in this case it is therefore almost ironic that redistribution of this heat outside of the earth and its atmosphere actually requires enormous amounts of heat. Sure it would be nice if it produced almost no heat, but outside of this case, if the quantity of heat were much less, the mechanism of steam jets would not be possible. Within some bounds, the more heat dissipated from the oceanic lithosphere the easier it is to get rid of. The immediate dissipation of mass quantities of latent heat (coupled with conduction from mantle rock with convecting hydrothermal activity) will also propel these reactions.I presume that this process could ultimately have geological, geochemical, and mineralogical implications as well.

quote:

---

A second problem arises when we observe the growing thickness and density of the oceanic lithosphere starting from the ridge to the subduction zone. Turcotte and Schubert explain this in their chapter 4-16 of "Geodynamics" with cooling by heat conduction as described by the model of a semi-infinite half-space. Conductive cooling of rock takes time, in the case of lithosphere with a thickness of 116 km about 80 million years.

---

As discussed previously, conductive cooling as in the half-space cooling model is probably not going to be the case. Also, Geodynamics is a very good reference and read. If it isn't already in your library, I also highly recommend Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets (Schubert, Turcotte, Olson, 2001). The two authors of Geodynamics are the primary authors of Mantle Convection and I find them both exquisite.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-11-2005 04:19 AM

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.