Hi, Guyz,
Ahhh! Thank heavens. I was afraid that I’d killed the thread, and that is something I do not wish to do. I think it has a lot of possibilities.
EP – yer first.
Actually, you did ignore the main thrust, but I’ll forgive you this time. At least you gave me some input to work with instead of ridicule and condescension. Those are like noisy static that conveys no meaning, and I have neither the time nor patience to put up with it. While I speak of this being fun, there is a serious purpose behind it.
“Water is not an approximation for the earth, particularly for things like density of water vs. magma, the layering of the mantle, things like the silica content of magma giving it different behavioral properties.” You are correct under most circumstances, but not this one. Let me explain using your peanut butter as an illustration.
The problem is as you say: “you probably can't use actual magma.” Exactly. Therefore, in creating a model, one must use something else. In using something else, though, one must approximate and match the other factors in the equation the best you can. You probably remember the lesson from Algebra that when working with an equation, it is possible to multiply or divide a factor in or out of it, BUT when you do, you have to do it to each part of the equation. Missing just one part of it will create a new equation. To illustrate, if x + y = z, then 2x + 2y = 2z. When leaving one out, such as 2x + y = 2z, it changes the equation entirely and any answers obtained from it then will be wrong.
Likewise in our model. We have three main factors: Viscosity, Pressure, and Heat. (Actually, there’s a fourth – compaction – but let’s keep it simple right now.) I think it would be safe to say that if we took that peanut butter down 500 miles into the mantle and subjected it to the same heat and pressure the magma is under, then it would flow like water too, as well as have convection currents within it.
Or, let’s turn it around. I’m not sure how to measure viscosity (any explanation would be welcome) so let’s just grab a figure and say that peanut butter is 100 times as thick as water. I believe I read something about the air pressure in the Space Station being kept at about ½ atmospheres, and I’m assuming that they keep it warm enough to be comfortable. If so, and we were trying to keep the equations comparable, then we would need to ask ourselves what peanut butter would act like under 1,500 (15 X 100) PSI and at about 7,000 (70 X 100) degrees of heat. (Okay, okay. It would catch on fire and burn up long before it got that hot. Let’s again use our “scientific license”, remove the oxygen, and say that it can’t.) Again, I think you will find that it will run like water. Please note that the other things you mention, the layering and silica content will also be affected by this same heat and pressure.
Actually then, we are going about the same thing, but coming at it from opposite directions. You wish to use something that has the same viscosity as magma, but are forgetting that its viscosity ON THE SURFACE would be different than it would be at a depth of 600 miles and a gazillion degrees of heat.
I, in turn, am trying to approximate what magma would flow like at such extremes of pressure and heat and am therefore using a liquid with a thinner viscosity.
Will it be 100% accurate? Of course not. Neither will any other way we have of trying to figure it out. However, this “model” (and it is one) does a beautiful job of illustrating the thing it is designed for: That the convection current in a global environment looks and runs in an entirely different configuration than one found in a pan on the stove. If the viscosity of the liquid is somewhat off, it is immaterial, for if a convection current is there at all, this is the way it will flow. That is the thrust of the model.
Now I will happily agree with Twitch in saying that this is a “simplified” model. Heck, it’s even a crude model. I would imagine that you should be grateful that it is, for if it was all gussied up with all the bells and whistles, it would probably be too long to post.
So, I’m sorry it violates your fastidious tastes, but look on the bright side of it. To deal with it, you’re going to have to learn how to think out of the box, and that’s good for you. It grows hair on yore chest. (Grin)
Yep. You said that EMP don’t work. And I didn’t say anywhere that they would. I said I didn’t know what would work in that scenario, so threw that out as a question and in a joking manner, ergo: the (Grin). So tell me, if I misdiagnosed this as a form of peck-sniffery on your part, what is the real reason why you are making a mountain out of a molehill?
No, look again. The model has four (4) dimensions. Yes, it has the usual x, y, and z axes. However, in nearly all fields of science, the fourth dimension is time. In fact, they’ve practically made a whole science out of the fourth dimension alone. The purpose of the model is to demonstrate the convection flow within it, and any movement whatsoever involves an amount of time. Ergo: It is a four dimensional model.
Yes, I did ask for critical feedback. However, ridicule, superciliousness, and peck-sniffery does not critical feedback make. So I’m asking you a favor: Cut it out, okay? I appreciate this thread, and I appreciate your feedback. If you see something that doesn’t make sense to you or that you don’t understand, great! If you know some factor that I’ve missed, that’s even greater! But please can the crap.
You say that “They” (scientists) “have a method that works.” My answer is that yes they do, most of the time. And even when they do, that by no means indicates that it is the only way that will work. The armed forces have a policy known as the Odd Man Out Theory where they will assign a team of experts to solve a certain problem, and deliberately include one man whose thinking processes and even their field of expertise is completely different. They know that because of that different type of thinking, he will see things that the rest won’t. I have some members of the military who are using me as an “Odd Man Out” right now, and that is what I’m referring to above when I said there is a serious purpose behind my posts.
This situation reminds me of something that happened about 50 years ago, and it illustrates well both the value of different ways of thinking and how the “official” way is not always the most effective way. I laugh about it to this day.
I had a friend named Ned who liked to play chess with me and we associated quite a bit with one another. He was as straight-laced and “by-the-book” as anyone I ever met, while I was laid back and relaxed, so we were indeed an odd couple.
The Society was having one of their Tract campaigns, which one I don’t remember, and we decided to go out in tract work that day. It was a warm day in Southern California and probably in the 80’s, so we dressed light.
Walking up the sidewalk of an apartment complex, I spied a young well-built fellow standing in the doorway of one apartment, leaning against the doorjamb, legs crossed, and watching us come closer. He had a pair of pants on, but that was all.
We drew closer, and when I felt I could say something to him without yelling, I piped up with a big cheery grin, “I’ve got some good news for you!”
“I ain’t interested.” He shot back.
I was feeling ornery, so there was no way I could let that rest. I jerked up in mock surprise. “WHAA –“ I hesitated with astonishment written all over my face. Then quieter, all concerned like, “Do you have too much of it now?”
“Yep!” You could see the corners of his mouth twitching.
“Is it runnin’ all over the floor?”
“Yep!”
And we both just cracked up. Half of it was because of the absolutely nutty conversation, and the other half because of the look of utter horror on Ned’s face.
He didn’t take the tract, and I didn’t care. We had a pleasant experience and I left him in a good mood, and that was all that I asked.
So Ned – er – I mean EntirelyPossible – relax. I’ll flat out guarantee that I will be doing things and using methods that you’ve never heard of before and that will outrage your sense of propriety. On the other hand, please keep in mind that I have a history of doing and succeeding at things that everyone else thought was impossible. Some of those are hilarious too.
As for the rest of you, please forgive me. It’s 3:30 a.m., and I’m spending more time sleeping on the keys than I am typing. I’ll get to you after I engage in some unconsciousness.
LoneWolf
