Subduction is the driving force of subduction? We obey the laws of thermodynamics in this forum, Volt.
Higher temperatures are a result of greater density and friction.
If subduction is pulling plates apart, why are plates not pulled apart? Where are the fractures where the 'pull' cannot overcome friction?
. . . you may teach English but reading comprehension isn't your strong suit . . . voltaire said no such thing.
. . . while rules of grammar and punctuation are optional . . . :chuckle:
. . . it's a good thing you don't teach physical science . . . while friction is a factor in temperature . . . the density of a substance is affected by temperature . . . not the other way around.
. . . ah, but they are being pulled apart.
. . . all over the place . . . ever heard of the New Madrid Fault or the Mid-ocean Ridge (among other features)?
And yet the two things that PT is are seafloor spreading and subduction. You cannot use the results of PT as the causes of it. :nono:
The density is affected by the temperature and the temperature is affected by the density depending on the way your study is designed. Both are reasonable statements. There is a physical process that controls the relationship between these two qualitative measures.
The MORs are not a plate being pulled apart where local friction cannot be overcome. With a plate that spans a third of the globe and a force pulling it there is no way the pull is going to leave the plate intact.
. . . why not? . . . because Stripe says so?
. . . well, no, it's not. New sea floor is created by the insertion of magma as the plate(s) moves away.
. . . Plate Tectonics.
:squint: . . . you have no idea what your talking about. The density of a substance is related to the temperature . . . gas for instance. If a gas is compressed the temperature increases because the gas is being compressed . . . the density of the gas is increasing because of the compression. However . . . the temperature will stop increasing when the compression of the gas stops and the temperature will equalize within the system. Should the temperature remain constant the density of the gas will remain constant. Nothing about the density of a gas apart from an external input (compression for example) will cause an increase in temperature. If you want to argue physics with someone . . . arguing with an engineer (me) was the wrong choice.
. . . no way huh? Do I detect an argument from incredulity?
. . . irrelevant red herring. The plate is moving . . . therefore there must be somewhere where the plate is "fracture(d) where the 'pull' cannot overcome friction."
No .. because it is rationally absurd.
:dizzy:
Of course it is. When I said there was a relationship between density and temperature I was not joking around.
And if you heat the air the density will decrease because the air is being heated. See how that works?
Uh .. yeah. Whatever.
No, you've just ignored the very simple to understand reason I gave.
What 'pull'? There is no subduction on the N.American plate. :idunno:
There were several recent papers saying the New Madrid fault is no longer being put under strain. I remember reading one that said it may have been originally loaded by glaciers and that strain is now past. It is only moving at 0.2mm per year in contrast to the San Andreas that is moving at 37mm per year. And yes it was originally created by a failed attempt at ripping the North American continent in half.
. . . at your level of understanding . . . sure.
. . . stick to teaching English . . . your students won't learn much . . . but it beats you teaching them science.
. . . sure there is a relationship . . . but density doesn't affect temperature.
. . . in a balloon perhaps . . . not in a closed and rigid vessel.
:chuckle:
:liberals: . . . :idea: . . . :kookoo:
. . . "smugness" has nothing to do with it . . . your lack of knowledge and understanding however . . . do.
. . . because you don't understand the principles involved doesn't make the process impossible.
. . . why not a "push" or a "slide?" The North American Plate is, without a doubt, moving (because the movement is measurable) . . . subduction isn't the only mechanism involved.
And if that were in anyway relevant to our discussion I might show you what is really going on.
:rotfl: Like you know anything that is actually "going on" in nature? :rotfl:
Nothing you've said is clear or rational. Your "plain reading" includes heaven = a crust of rock. It's so stupid it doesn't even deserve a response much less a list of reasons.
Yes, I only talk to Stripe when I'm bored or feel I deserve to be insulted. :hammer:
. . . :rotfl: . . . so . . . the Bible is a scientific text now?
. . . this seems to be another attempt at the . . . "you can't answer every possible inane question therefore goddidit" foolishness . . . :yawn:.
And by what method do the judges of this competition decide that something is "highly plausible"? Like basically every competition of this sort, no matter the topic, the prize is known to be essentially un-winnable since to win you have to actually change the mind of the extremely biased judge.
That would be Nobel prize and you would likely only get it if you could successfully replicate the process (or at least replicate a major part of it)
