|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mainstream plate tectonics model is nowhere near quantitatively correct | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
I'm getting a lot of flak from mainstream geologists here about creationist models of rapid continental drift. They've led me to believe that the mainstream model is as solid as quantum mechanics or something. Interesting what this mainstreamer said about it in New Scientist this month (admittedly he has his own new theory):
quote: As a physicist who has recently got into geology as a hobby this actually was the impression I had got myself. On this BBS people would get a far different impression. My point isn't that the current model is wrong but that the current model is basically a possible answer. It is nowhere near as quantiatitive that you all think it is! It's not pythogorus yet! ------------------You are go for TLI [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You know, for a 'Phded' scientist, you sure play fast and loose with information. This is almost irresponsible on your part trying to change the meaning of Anderson's words. His point is that the plates drive convection rather than convection driving the plates. Why don't you take some time to learn about a subject before posting misinformation on it. I suggest you read what Anderson is really talking about here:
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~dla/occam's_razor_simplicity_final_draft.pdf Get your facts straight! Geologists disagree on many things, a mobile outer layer does not seem to be one of them. Interestingly, what Anderson is arguing most vehemently against is what Baumgardner is arguing for. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^I don't agree Joe. I understood exactly what you said from the New Scientist article. I understood Anderson's new theory of convection due to the cold crust - makes a lot of sense and I found it scientifically interesting.
But I happened to read the article in the train on the way home last night and he also goes on record in the artcile that the current theory does not reproduce the data - that is my point. I know he didn't say it for creationists to quote but he said it! His statement is there in black and white for anyone to read and in the article itself (admittedly written by a science journalist) it goes on to say: "Efforts to model convection based on heat from below have failed". Betsy Mason NS, 4th May 2002. All I'm trying to say is that the current model does not reproduce the data very well! Why do you have to rubbish everything I say just because you know my creationist bias? ------------------You are go for TLI [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Look at your first post. Anyone not familiar with Anderson's work might easily assume that he is arguing against plate tectonics. He most certainly is not. What he is arguing about is whether or not convection drives the plates or if the plates drive convection. Your quote was irresponsible in that your provided only a snippet intended to convey an alternative meaning. For someone who claims to be a "Phded' scientist 'working in the mainstream' you sure as hell don't seem to know how it works. There is disagreement in science, but it is not about whether a Noachian global flood has occurred. That issue was long ago settled. Take some time when you post and realize that not everyone on here will know the full context of a particular scientist's view! To do otherwise is playing fast and loose. By the way, Anderson's ideas are not new. Many scientists have written about and know that there is a feedback between the lithosphere and the mantle. Many of us see it as a 2-way street. Plates change convection patterns and those changes result in plate reorganization. Anderson is saying this as well. I am not sure exactly what you think is so damning of modern geology in Anderson's article. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
I agree with Joe. Your quote clearly indicates that the problem is with geophysics' models of mantle convection, not plate tectonics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I'm not familiar with Anderson's work, but is it really true that he has "his own new theory" of continental drift, as TB claims in the first paragraph of post 1.
The Anderson quote is pretty short, so there's little context, but he appears to be commenting on the lack of success in developing a mathematical model for plate tectonics. Is that right, Joe? If so, then this simply seems analogous to weather. We have observational evidence for weather to the point where we can characterize it's behavior in great detail, but it is so complicated that we cannot develop mathematical models that predict weather more than a few days out. I imagine the same difficulties exist for mantle convection currents and plate tectonics. We have tons of data on the motion of continents over time, so much so that you can watch animated movies showing the dance of the continents from Gondawanaland to today, but we have yet to develop a successful mathematical model replicating that behavior over a billion years. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Thanks Percy that's all I'm trying to say. My only addition is that this means we can't assume that the mainstream model is correct in detail. Of course our model morphs into your model over time - as things cool down our model becomes your model.
------------------You are go for TLI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[B]I'm not familiar with Anderson's work, but is it really true that he has "his own new theory" of continental drift, as TB claims in the first paragraph of post 1. The Anderson quote is pretty short, so there's little context, but he appears to be commenting on the lack of success in developing a mathematical model for plate tectonics. Is that right, Joe? If so, then this simply seems analogous to weather. We have observational evidence for weather to the point where we can characterize it's behavior in great detail, but it is so complicated that we cannot develop mathematical models that predict weather more than a few days out. I imagine the same difficulties exist for mantle convection currents and plate tectonics. We have tons of data on the motion of continents over time, so much so that you can watch animated movies showing the dance of the continents from Gondawanaland to today, but we have yet to develop a successful mathematical model replicating that behavior over a billion years.[/QUOTE] JM: That is correct! One of the issues that Anderson discusses in his article is the problem with describing a plate driving mechanism that explains all the observations. Scientists advocate mantle plumes, true polar wander and other mechanisms to enhance the limiting 'power' of mantle convection in mathematical models (myself included!). However, Anderson supposes that plates drive the convection patterns in the upper mantle and those changes result in changes in plate motion patterns in a dynamic feedback. Anderson HATES plumes, but some of the recent geodynamic models suggest that plumes are a natural consequence of surface plate organization. Once again, it is the lithosphere causing the plumes, which in turn, feedback to help move the plates. I have an article under review on this topic that you can download here (it's kind of big so phone dialups may take a while to download). It is called 'The HOG hypothesis' where HOG= Hand 'o God. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You've got a number of problems with such an assertion. The data and analysis you claim I have not provided with respect to this will now be given to you again:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htmhttp://gondwanaresearch.com/oceans.htm Please note that these links are my own analysis and therefore I do present my own data and analysis contrary to your previous assertion. You have not provided any data to support 'your model'. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Ok Joe, I'll try and absorb this over the next few days. I'll have to check out Baumgardner's stuff again too. It's great for both sides that you're putting this effort in.
But I stand by the point I raised in this thread. ------------------You are go for TLI |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
For now let me just add that your comments on your web page about 'unrealistic viscosities' seems to be important to your argument. Is it unrealistic becasue you wont allow for accelerated decay and associated radiogenic heating or is it intrinsically unrealistic?
------------------You are go for TLI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]For now let me just add that your comments on your web page about 'unrealistic viscosities' seems to be important to your argument. Is it unrealistic becasue you wont allow for accelerated decay and associated radiogenic heating or is it intrinsically unrealistic?[/QUOTE] JM: The reason is that it is intrinsically unrealistic. You know those models Anderson is ragging on? This is what Baumgardner does! However, the viscosity of the mantle is totally irrelevant to my argument on that page. I was merely pointing out that this is another issue that Baumgardner does not fully address. By the way, Baumgardner's model (if you look closely) releases more than enough heat to boil away the oceans (by his own calculation!). He did not discuss this much because he was more worried about the interior of the earth, but the amount of heat released would easily cook Noah. A friend of mine notes the following:
quote: Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
I'm quite ready to admitt that their model is not up to scratch yet. For me it opens a door to possibilities and I await their comments on you and your friend's points. Things unfortunately move very slowly in the creation community - there are only a handful of guys doing this stuff and they're usually doing two jobs. Given their resources I'm impressed with their output. Thank you for your efforts pointing out their problems. I am prepared to let this iterate a few times before dumping the idea.
I do have a secret door onto Snellings, Humphries and (Tas) Walkers desktops (I know their secret ------------------You are go for TLI [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: Well, of those only Snelling is a geologist so I would not really expect Walker or Humphreys (you'd think friends would spell his name right?) to be able to do much in the way of commenting. Baumgardner is one of those creationists who is willing to write on both sides of the fence (like Woodmorappe/Peczkis). His mainstream articles are old earth. I find such a behavior very strange in a scientist. I would never agree to co-author a paper where the conclusions were so diametrically opposed to my stated public religious viewpoint. Apparently, this is not a big deal to people like Baumgardner, Woodmorappe (or Snelling). Just call me one of those atheists with weird morals about scientific integrity His: and the real thing: Notice carefully what Humphrey's did! That sort of misuse troubles me as a scientist. Apparently, it is standard OP for creationists.Cheers Joe Meert [Edited to fix width of images, click on images to see full-size versions. --Percy] [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-17-2002] [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-17-2002] [This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Come on Joe, Humphreys just drew a Corel Draw sketch to give us some sort of feeling that was in his head. And sure it may be based on that data in a sub-conscious way. He seems to have reverse timed it, shifted the horizontal axis and accelerated the reversals? But he really is just trying to show us what the creationist have in mind empirically. Do you have a diagram on the web somewhere of what the entire time sequence of reversals is from the mainstream POV?
BTW - I never said Humphreys was a friend, I'm just in email contact with him and when I emailed him I pluralized his name too ------------------You are go for TLI
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024