Heat release from tectonic friction

1) Nor is "convincing someone of a certain truth is not my concern if they do not value reading comprehension when telling others what Genesis says."But I am concerned as a member of society about what people believe when groups form that promote and disseminate erroneous falsehoods.
I believe that Truth is the light into the real world which we can only ignore at our own jeopardy as a nation.2) They deserve to wallow in their ignorance, but we do not deserve to live in th Poliically Correct culture that they create and use to quiet us.

TrueCreation, I don't know the science behind it, but am not fully convinced about the whole heat creation argument. It all depends on HOW two plates collide. If the one simply sinks below the other, the heat creation is a lot less than if one collides into another as in mountain building processes. I am not mathematical, I could never work out the amount of heat generated for the formation of the main mountain ranges, but surely the heat generated would be limited to the formation of existing mountain ranges? ie what effect would the heat generated in the creation of the Himalayas over say 800 years have on the earth?Two plates sliding over one another as per the Japanese quake, 50 m of ocean floor lost in one day, had no significant heat effects.
Same as the splitting of the Afar rift in 2005, in some areas it split by 30M wide, with no descernible heat effects. So the observed reality as opposed to the theory, is that its possible to have continuous continental drift of many meters in one day, without any significant effects, both in subduction and spreading zones.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

If you are not going to do the heat calculations how can you say the Japanese had no apprecialable effect?

It seems there have not been much studies on the actual temperatures at subduction zones, so all the maths is just speculation. Just through deductive reasoning its pretty clear that if you move two plates past each other there is less friction than if you collide or grind them roughly into each other. So speculate all you want on the maths, if two plates slide smoothly over one another, this has less effect than if two plates collide, and the effect is as yet unquantified. Guesswork.Moore Foundation grant funds study of Tohoku earthquake fault
Brodsky, a professor of Earth and planetary sciences, helped organize the Japan Trench Fast Drilling Project (JFAST), which successfully drilled across the Tohoku earthquake fault earlier this year and installed a temperature observatory on the fault. The observatory allows scientists for the first time to measure the frictional heat produced by the fault slip of a great subduction-zone earthquake.Earthquakes occur as giant plates in the Earth's crust grind past each other. Tectonic forces push the plates forward, while friction on the faults between plates holds them back. According to Brodsky, the lack of measurements of the frictional force during the sliding motion of an earthquake is one of the major impediments to progress in earthquake science."Observing and analyzing the temperature on the fault following the recent magnitude 9 Tohoku earthquake provides a unique and probably never-again achievable window into this critical value," Brodsky said. "What we learn will inform and prepare us for the next earthquakes, including the one predicted for the Cascadian subduction zone that lies along the coast of Oregon and Washington."

Yes, it is so much more effective to butt two sticks together than to rub them to start a fire.Enjoy

You aren't describing the problem set up here. At least not as I understand it.Basically, the issue here is that if the world is only 6000 years old, then the plates must originally have been moving really fast to get into their current position. Currently the plates are observed to be moving far more slowly. That loss of kinetic energy is from friction. We can say something about the magnitude of the energy involved and about the time involved. We don't have to speculate about what happens when the plates slide smoothly over each other because that would not produce slowing.

Thanks for explaining that. I believe the slowdown is more related to less mantle instability than kinetic forces (and friction) in the crust itself. But whether the heat under discussion relates to the original kinetic forces and friction, or the friction related to the slowdown of the tectonic activity, the same logic applies, they are still trying to measure tectonic related temperature changes.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I don't know what your sentence means? In order for big plates to stop moving, you cannot simply stop applying a moving force. You actually have to apply some kind of braking force. Or at least that's what Newton and I thought.

Makes sense, I have to admit there would be significant friction for the slowdown. Let's see what the Japan studies reveal.

Hi mindspawn I think you may have missed some important points on this topic. Maybe you haven't read the whole thread.Based on the seismic activity of the San Andreas Fault, I did some calculations on what the seismic activity would be if the plates traveled from a single land mass to their present locations in only 6,000 years. see Message 9I estimated that at that rate iit would produce an average of 3 magnitude 6 or greater earthquakes per hour for every 1000 miles of fault plus more than 1000 lesser earthquakes. This amount of seismic activity would not have gone unnoticed during the last 4000+ years of written history. Not to mention it would not be too friendly to life.The other major problem is the heat produced when the sea floor spreads and fills with magma, which would be cooled by the oceans. True Creation calculated the heat generated from this process in Message 25 and estimated that it would be enough to heat the ocean to 14300K - which could boil an ocean 140 times more massive than the earth's.These two points alone make discussion about the heat generated by friction superfluous. However, my calculations of the heat generated by friction are in Message 10 and estimate that friction would only account for an increase in temp of 1K. Friction alone plays very little role in the model, IMO. However , the bottom line is the continental plates would have moved 29,000 times faster than they are thought to have according to the standard model (175,000,000 years according to standard models divided by 6,000 years for a YEC model)But considering the seismic activity and sea floor cooling alone, I say that YEC models are faced with 3 basic choices1) Appeal to magic to disperse the heat2) Abandon plate tectonics all together and explain biogeography and other geologic phenomenon with different models.3) Recognize that the earth is indeed much older than 6,000 years.HBD

I think you're missing something, I don't know how significant it is.The thing is that as you note the plates would have to have been moving much faster than they are today, i.e. they had more kinetic energy than they do today. All that kinetic energy must have been converted into heat via friction to slow them down to their present speed. What would that do? I'm too tired to think about that right now, I'm going to watch TV instead.

I probably am. I was surprised at how low the number was, but the lithosphere is enormous and requires a tremendous amount of heat to raise it 1K ( 5.6 x 10^24 J) I based my calculations on published values for energy release during an earthquake then extrapolated it. One thing I see I did wrong was I only accounted for major earthquakes not all the lesser ones that would be accompanying them. That may double or triple the energy released. Well, after you get some rest, see if you can come up with a better estimate. If you could improve any of the other estimates, that would be great too.Oh, and another thing, the plates move by convection currents in the mantle which is caused by a temperature differential. I also understand that much of the heat generated by the core is from radioactive decay. So I was thinking, this is a YEC favorite - that radioactive decay was more rapid in the past which could be used to explain how there was more convection currents in the mantle and thus faster plate movement. My question is how much temperature differential would there need to be to produce convection currents that could push the plates at the needed rate? Well considering that the plates would have to move at 29,000 times the current rate, all the individual calculations are just decorationHBD