you mean to say that the lost tribes of MU are not secretly moving the continents with their secret psychic, psychotic, psychokinetic toes?! HERETIC!![]()
Hey! I didn't say it.. but I WAS thinking it? Atlantian spy!
Randy
you mean to say that the lost tribes of MU are not secretly moving the continents with their secret psychic, psychotic, psychokinetic toes?! HERETIC!![]()
I even recall reading that in a book for adults. Yes, there is lower air pressure above the wing than below..
.
“A wing generates ‘lift’ due to the faster air over the upper surface creating a ‘vacuum’ which lifts the airfoil”
“How does an airplane fly upside down then”
.
.
Okay, even if slab pull is a stronger force than ridge push, it still means there's some force behind the ridge push at mid-ocean ridges. Which to my untutored eye, looks a lot like convection.. . . This is not really a convection cell, as the rising plume is not connected to the spreading centre . . .
Its not the upwelling of material itself that pushes the plate away from the ridge, but rather the plate sliding down the upwelled ridge in the mantle. The mantle itself has upwelled becasue it has been uncompressed by the fracture in the plate caused by the slab pull forces. There is no plume underneath the upwelling in the mantle that is carrying material from deeper in the mantle to the surface.Okay, even if slab pull is a stronger force than ridge push, it still means there's some force behind the ridge push at mid-ocean ridges. Which to my untutored eye, looks a lot like convection.
I even recall reading that in a book for adults. Yes, there is lower air pressure above the wing than below.
So, how does a plane fly upside down? Maybe not as well and only using previous air speed! I don't know for sure. Excellent question.![]()
I’m open to the idea that convection merely is the “conventional wisdom,” even repeated in textbooks.. . . For convection to be the cause it would have to be the other way around, with the mantle actively breaking though the crust to force it apart. . .
Some of it might come through as volcanic lava in (?) 20,000 years or so, just guessing at time frame.Now on the subduction zones I am aware that it has been suggested that we could 'recycle' (read: get rid of, not really recycle) nuclear waste by drilling into the subduction plate and putting the waste. But that diagram would seem to argue that unless the waste is really deep in the layer it might 'precipitate' out too soon?
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/driving_forces_basic.htmI’m open to the idea that convection merely is the “conventional wisdom,” even repeated in textbooks.
All the same, I’d like to see a reference or two.
Yes, thank you, I see per this website by Columbia University:
Instead, the driving force for oceanic plates is . . .‘ . . . variation in gravity produced by upwelling and downwelling regions, indicates that there are multiple convection cells beneath the Pacific plate. The combined effect would not be one that would drive the motion of the plate - some cells would help, some would hinder. . . ’
‘ . . . However, mantle flow may be important locally with respect to the motion of continents with deep keels (thickened lithosphere, especially in old orogenic belts), but not for oceanic lithosphere.’
So when someone says continental drift is caused by convection, I can retort with 'only on Venus' and be correct?It happens much more frequently on Venus, where the lack of water has prevented tectonic movment, and instead the crust is periodically resurfaced by titanic flood eruptions.
So when someone says continental drift is caused by convection, I can retort with 'only on Venus' and be correct?
. . I can retort with 'only on Venus' . .
And back here on Earth where we do have plate tectonics, oceanic plates are not driven by convection.. . Venus is interesting because its geomechanics work on almost entirely different processes . .