Some help for the TC model

TC has proposed on here (now critiqued and discussed on various threads) that sea-floor spreading and magnetic reversals were more rapid in the past and have been slowing since the flood. I'm assuming the tacit assumption he considers the earth to be quite young. I've asked TC repeatedly to discuss the full consequences of his model in order to harmonize it with the magnetic reversal stratigraphy on land and to acount for the geodynamical consequences of his model. So far he has not been willing to provide this information. In the interest of moving the discussion along, I thought I would point out some interesting omissions from TC's model and also offer some hope (false hope though it may be) for his model. Here are some important points that TC has not considered:(1) The correlation of the continental magnetostratigraphic record (and its variability) with the oceanic reversal record in terms of timing, mechanics and global implications.(2) The geodynamic mechanism for generating this rapid drift. TC has casually mentioned (with some confusing mixing of terms) that the viscosity of the mantle must play a role. Indeed, one can play with mantle viscosity in order to generate faster plate motions (ala Baumgardner). However, what generates this change in viscosity and what is the relationship to this increase and the concomittant (according to TC) increase in reversals on earth? I am hoping this can be expressed in a quantitive manner rather than by 'word play'. Here's a bone for you: Increased spreading such as what you propose would generate significant continental flooding without the need for any extra water.(3) How does point (2) relate to point (1)?(4) How does the mechanism for locking in magnetization in the ocean floor relate to the mechanism for locking in the magnetization in the continental sedimentary sections (especially during a flood)? Discuss these in terms of their temporal correlation.(5) How much oceanic crust was generated during the flood and opening of the Atlantic ocean (for example)? Discuss (quantitatively) the topography generated by this spreading, the subsequent rates of cooling and subsidence predicted by the rapid flood spreading model and how this all relates to point (4) above.(6) How long does it take to relax the thermal anomaly generated during the time of the flood (if a thermal anomaly is the cause)? Express this answer quantitatively.(7) Discuss quantitatively the dimensions of the earth during this rapid motion. Here's what you must show: Decreased viscosity results in increased spreading rates. Is there a mass balance situation within the lithosphere earth during the flood? How do you maintain this mass balance given the amount of heat generated during the rapid phase of drift. Please express this quantitatively.That should be a good start.Cheersyou may find this figure useful:

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
[b] a)What causes the flooding? Only thing I can think of is the bow waves thrown up by the continents as they steam around at speeds in the miles per hour range, but that would probably cause tsunamis instead of floods per se.....[/QUOTE]

​

JM: The flooding is caused by the increased volume of the oceanic crust and the dynamic topography generated from the thermal anomaly.

​

[QUOTE]b)Doesn`t the thermal anomaly cause the reduced viscosity? If not what does? If the decrease in viscosity is due to the anomalous temperatures how can the decreased viscosity cause the thermal anomaly?[/b]

---

JM: Yes, my typing was ahead of my head! I've corrected the text.CheersJoe Meert

TC,I thought you might find this useful as you work through your model: Of course, you'll have to plug in the appropriate range of values applicable to your model. WHy not do that and post the results here for further discussion?Cheers

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-22-2002]

Sure,T_m=Mantle temp
w=average depth of seafloor below the ridge
p_m=mantle density
p_w=density of water
k=diffusivity term
t=average age of subducted crust
pi=pi
T₀=surface temperature, nominally taken as zeroThink that's all of them.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
[B] 1)t or tau is average age? Theres an integral involving dt so t being a constant seems odd....[/QUOTE]JM:Average age; however, it falls out of the integration; note the 1/tau term outside the integral will factor into the integration because the integration is done from 0 to tau.

quote:

---

2)Does it matter what temperature range you use? I`m guessing its not Kelvin if its normally aproximated to zero....

---

JM: Yes, and no. You can't use Fahrenheit, but Kelvin is ok as is Celsius. If you want to use Kelvin then nominal would be 273 K.

quote:

---

So is it Centigrade?

---

JM: In my example, yes.

quote:

---

(sorry about that second one but certain equations like L = sigmaT⁴ give funny results if you use the wrong scale....)

---

JM: Yes, you've got to keep units straight here. I wrote this for TC since he told me he's pretty up on all this so that's why I skipped the explanations. Sorry

quote:

---

3)Oh thats nice.... Um Joe (insert embaressed looking smilie here) what is the diffusion constant? Is it a constant or a function of something else? Sorry i have to keep asking like this....

---

JM: kappa=K/pc ....It has units of length^2/time, but the K (thermal conductivity) tells you its related to how far/fast heat diffuses. Does that help? It is not a constant (hint: this is a term that will cause TC fits when he starts to model).

quote:

---

4)Ummmm.... What is the alpha_v

---

JM:coefficient of thermal expansion.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-23-2002]

For those who just can't wait...here is part of TC's problem. Explanation to follow once TC has made his analysis (but notice the average depth of the ocean floor in the top model). CheersJoe Meert

Well, he told me that I should consider him on the same page as I am. The analysis we are discussing is all non-controversial physics insofaras young earth creationism is concerned! That's why it's such a big problem for him. These are earth materials (he even said so) and therefore he only has a small leeway in changing the parameters to fit his model. The other point is that in any 'model', the devil is in the details. You cannot have your model and ignore its physical consequences.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-23-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Ugh, give me a bit, I must release my frustration, I clicked the back button on this page instead of another one moments before I would have submitted. I had a critique of good length, so I will redo it.

​

---

JM: There's nothing to critique! I asked you a series of questions and asked you to conduct an analysis. You need to do that before we can have a meaningful discussion.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-23-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
AAAAAhhh!!!

​

Please!....no....more....math.....

​

Aaaaahhhh...gurgle....thump.

​

---

JM: Yes, those pesky details get in the way of an otherwise perfect hypothesis!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
1)Sorry I`m still not getting how t is average age instead of tau....

​

Could you work through a brief example for me please?

​

2)Hmmm k[Kg.m/K.s³] so to end up with Kappa [m²/s] pc needs units [Kg/K.m.s²]...

​

Ok i`ll bite Joe what is pc?

---

JM: Tau, is average age. Sorry, thought that was clear. During integration, the solution is2/3t^3/2 evaluated from 0 to tau. the final expression looks the same as I gave earlier except the integral is removed and the expression is multiplied by 1/tau (means the final tau is tau^1/2 and the constant is 4/3.pc= is actually rho* c....Rho=density and has units of kg/m³. c is specific heat and has units of Joules/kg*C. Now, to anticipate your next question, joules are kg*m²/s²....cancelling all you getkappa = kg*m² * m³ * sec²*^oC / m * ^oC * sec³*kg*m²if i've copied this correctly, you get kappa= m²/sec

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
1)Okey doke... If tau`s average age it makes sense it was the confusion over whether it (average age) was t or tau that got me....

​

2)I was thinking p might be a rho but I figured it would be easier to ask.....

​

Sorry about all the pesky details Joe....

---

No problem, now go plug them and test them!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Ok so the units of alpa_v are [K^-1]?

​

If so I think I understand the equation....

---

JM: Yes, the units are 1/tempCheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Meert, is there an area on the internet explaining the equation or must I ask you questions on variable expression (I don't think I need the calc or physics explained, I believe, though the input is where I need assistance).

​

---

JM: Well, you told me you and I were at the same level of understanding. Is that assumption now incorrect?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

...as for my assertion that basically 'were on the same level' with Joe, It was not meant in the context as everyone is refering. I interpereted Joe's post as that it seemed he believed there are spreading centers taking place on continents producing new continental mass(If this were so, it would have been quite an ignorance of geology), which I did not think that he thought. So I asserted that I was on the same level as he in this question. I am most sertaintly not on the same level 'period' with him.

---

JM: What do you think is happening in the East African rift? The Rio grande rift? Actually, I don't know how you concluded that this is what I was talking about, but so be it. The East African rift has added some mass to the continents (Kilimanjaro and Mt. Kenya come to mind), so rifting can add mass to continents (contrary to your suggestion)....however that is an aside. Are you now saying that you cannot answer the questions I posed? I don't know of any internet site with these equations. The symbols are all defined along with their units in this thread as is the solution to the integral so you should have at it.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"JM: What do you think is happening in the East African rift? The Rio grande rift?"
--Continents are diverging. Soon there will be another ocean in the East African Rift (the Red sea I belive), not a continent.

​

"Actually, I don't know how you concluded that this is what I was talking about, but so be it."
--Different posts such as these entertained my interpretation which was incorrect:

​

"The East African rift has added some mass to the continents (Kilimanjaro and Mt. Kenya come to mind), so rifting can add mass to continents (contrary to your suggestion)....however that is an aside."
--I am aware, my interpretation of your previous assertions was that it adds continental mass just as it adds mass to sea-floor, a different 'addition of mass' mechenism.

​

"Are you now saying that you cannot answer the questions I posed?"
--I didn't assert this, I asserted that I would need some questions answered on variable input, possibly if I could see an example of the equation.

​

"I don't know of any internet site with these equations. The symbols are all defined along with their units in this thread as is the solution to the integral so you should have at it."
--So you will not bite my head off if I am to ask questions? Some of them were answered by you and Joz.

​

---

JM: Not at all, but that in itself leads to some issues. You have presented a half-cocked hypothesis on a subject (which you now admit) you don't understand fully. Most of us try to understand something before we present foolish ideas. Just about everything you've presented with regard to geology has been naively incorrect and inconsistent. That is because you don't know the topic well enough yet to make reasoned arguments. Work on answering the questions I posed here and explain why the oceans today are more than 50 meters deep when your hypothesis predicts that the oceans would only be ~50 meters deep.CheersJoe Meert