Robert Byers writes:
I'll put another way.
If the magna never cooled and stayed in its magna state it would not be a act or result of geology.
Actually, it would still be geology. Geology is concerned with the materials that form the solid portion of the earth. So although the magma is not yet solid, it is the precursor to the solid material (rock) and is therefore still a topic for discussion in Geology.
As a material scientist I study the strength and properties of solid materials (ceramics, metals, polymers etc). However, when studying the properties of these materials a full understanding of their chemical components is necessary. This includes the materials in their molten state, even though i can't run a tensile test on a liquid.
In order to understand the tensile strength of steel it is also necessary to understand the solubility of oxygen and carbon in molten iron. Molten iron is not steel but it is still a valid topic when discussing metallurgy.
In the same way, although magma may not be a rock, its chemical composition and cooling rates are necessary to understand the properties of the rock it will form when cooled.
Also, grain size of rocks/minerals is extremely important in understanding the cooling rates of molten materials. I work with grain size measurements all the time in metallurgy to see how quickly a material was quenched. I can even look at grain growth and tell in which direction the material cooled.
only after the chemical reaction has stopped and the material, upon cooling and another reaction, becomes hard or rock is it to be seen as geology.
So magna processes are not a part of geology. only the finished material after the magna has ceased to be.
Wrong again. The cooling rates of molten rock have profound consequences to the mechanical properties and grain structure of these rocks. It has EVERYTHING to do with geology. Magma processes, their cooling rates and solubility rates are integral to geology.
This was my problem. i can't see a chemical action being applied to a geological issue. In nature boundaries over lap but they exist.
Cooling calcuactions is not geology. its chemistry.
I have no interest in that and its not evidence for geological claims in a geology section.
its about rocks and bigger rocks.
But thats exactly why cooling rates and cooling calculations matter. These rates determine the grain size in both metallic and non-metallic crystalline structures. These processes are what make rocks and bigger rocks. So, heck yes they matter. And cooling rates are not even restricted to chemistry. They are predominantly a physics issue. Cooling and phase change is a physical change not a chemical change.
But what do I know after a few classes in phase diagrams and material thermodynamics?
I see the issue here. Byers is trying to separate the sciences. He believes that all of the sciences are mutually exclusive. And he needs to believe this. Its the only way he can tear down the ones that oppose his beliefs without realizing that he's a kook.
To Byers, physics is physics and has nothing to do with chemistry. Geology is geology and has nothing to do with chemistry. I guess that's news to those of us who studied material science or geology. I always thought chemistry was based on the physics of atoms and molecules. I guess all these experiments i've been running with astounding predictability and accuracy are wrong.
™ Version 4.2
