Continental Drift Contradictions (CDC)

Jim, I refer you to the start of my 1st Jan 13 post: ¡°Seismotomography has long been showing that the . . . continents appear to be stuck, embedded in a mixture of solid and liquid magma, most likely a heavily fractured but solid mantle with magma filling fractures and cavities, lakes, small seas but no oceans . . .¡±,

The 1st para. of my 2nd Jan 13 post: ¡°. . . increasing pressures with depth raise melting points¡± (This works both ways, in agreement with MV re lava), and the 3rd para from the end of my Jan 23 post, where ¡°I explain Seafloor Spread subsidence in terms of a "Waterslide Effect" in 4.3 page 8. Related "Sea-Ice" and "Gigolo" "Effects" explaining what happens where spreading seafloors collide with stuck/fixed continents, are introduced in 4.4 page 3.¡±

Also, much of what I wrote last time is covered by a key paper, "Solid Earth deformation . . . Status and Scientific Problems.", original link broken.

Mars is a telling exception to that Rocky Planet Cratering Rule (CRAR) of my Jan. 23 post 2nd para.: ". . . the ubiquitous "cratering" . . . apparent on all rocky, non-oceanic planets AND NOT rocky oceanic planetary continents." As I was explaining at metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=727 , Mars' non-oceanic rocky surface is more like the Earth's thinly cratered, continental rocky surface than the Moon's . . .

The obvious explanation of this paradox is that Mars' permafrosted crust has, subsequent to huge, super huge impacts, like the Earth's surface been "Freeze Effect"-ed to a varying extent globally ( www.nodrift.com Introduction 4th last para., 3.3 page 4, v.2 page 9). Much of Mars' crust would have been melted into oceans/seas of watery mud, and many of these muddy oceans/seas would have been hugely or super hugely geyser-ed, tidal wave-d, as happened on Earth.

That Mars' hemispheric dichotomy, Earth's ocean-continent rhythmicity, Mars' and Earth's polar congruencies, multiscale global symmetries are also thus explained (v.2 page 6, 3.1 pages 3-5) is corroborative.

The cool, rocky-surfaced planets are thus explained as more or less heavily cratered in inverse proportion to crustal Freeze Effect, more or less proportional to Freeze Effect-ive material abundances of: Earth's water, Mars' and the Moon's permafrost, Titan's hydrocarbon, and so on.

Getting back to how pressure effects the melting point of solids-where do you get the data indicating a solid melts at a higher temperature if the pressure is raised? This change of phase from a solid to a liquid involves something called the heat of fusion that needs to be added in order for a solid to go liquid. Are you assuming both these needs are met in your model or do you have some other explaination as to how they are met in your model? In the real phase change pressure has no effect on either of these two requirements. Pressure does effect the liquid/vapor phase change but not the solid/liquid phase change. These are very well documented events.

Firstly, I found the new link to that key paper I mentioned in my 1st 26 Jan post, "Solid Earth deformation and gravity changes due to surface loading: Status and scientific problems.". It is now at:
141.74.1.36/documents/workshop2002a/plag-van_dam.pdf .

Yes Jim,
As I wrote in my Jan 15 post: ". . . latent heat is required to melt anything, while the temperature of the mantle is close to melting point and radioactive heating is thinly distributed and not very powerful." This means that lava production from solid magma is not guaranteed just because pressure drops . . . Beyond this Physics, we enter the world of Geology, indeed a particular field of Geology where I dare not say anything . . . except that:

According to my ebook thesis, the solid mantle has been heavily "fracture-melt"-ed by huge, super huge impacts, and the fractures are filled with lavas as well as magmas near the surface, consistent with what seismotomography shows.

Jim,
Some of your Geological questions might be answered by looking for correlations which would also be a good test of my ebook CDC (CD Contradiction) thesis, many of its subtheses, and CD antithesis . . .

I forced myself to have another look at the Geological detail of your last post and was reminded of impressions I've been getting from Geologists over the years consistent with my CDC thesis, that CD theory has not been performing very well from many practical, Geological viewpoints, compared to say the great help economic Electronics has been getting from Quantum Mechanics, practical AstroPhysics from Relativity theory and so on.

I then recalled what I had written in my last post . . . and it occurred to me that the statistical significances of three pairs of correlations between the following three global variables should be looked at: CDC solid-liquid phase variations revealed in the upper mantle by seismotomography; my ebook's Vol w antipodal resonances, many of which would be huge impact "sermed" (4.05-12, w.1); w.2-w.3 "globif"(GLObal BIsectional Faultline)-indicated huge impact centres.

The melting of a solid (with the exceptions of hydrides of the chalcogens which expand in their solid states) can be changed with pressure.
An increased pressure will raise the required temperature needed for melting. While high pressure experiments are difficult I will use the low pressure example where decreasing pressure causes melting to accelerate at constant temperatures and extrapolate it in the other direction. For a more practical example I suggest Jim that you take note of the fact that a smelting forge (where solid metal is melted for pouring) takes less fuel to melt metal in a city such as Denver, CO, then it would at sea-level. The decrease in pressure changes the latent heat of the metal requiring less calories to change state since the surrounding air is not pressing as hard on the molecules as they break away from their lattice configurations. Peter is partially correct when saying that all super-heated rock will not form liquid magma under the same conditions. I mentioned the lattice structure of the rock a moment ago; now, we need to take into account the actual substance and its lattice structure. The lattice of the solid affects its phase change. Using Titanium as a model element, take into account its two main structures:
ALPHA STRUCTURE
AND
BETA STRUCTURE.
What is the difference? Well, the alpha structure is more loosely bound in the lattice allowing for lower melting points and malleability. The beta structure is more rigid and closely bound. It melts much higher (Like 600-800 degrees celsius higher), is difficult to machine, and is more brittle.
Why discuss the physical properties of Ti?
Well in using Ti as a model for the observed extremely heterogeneous nature of the crust and mantle, we can conjecture that numerous varieties of molecule structures are present. Differing eruptive materials aid in illustrating this. Igneous differentiation causes adjustments in the pressure-mediated decompositional melting curve. Basically we need to know what type of rock is under a volcano or hot-spot to predict what kinds of magma are likely.

Characteristics of different magmas are as follows:

Ultramafic (picritic)
SiO2 < 45%
Fe-Mg >8% up to 32%MgO
Temperature: up to 1500°C
Viscosity: Low to Very Low
Eruptive behavior: gentle
Distribution: divergent plate boundaries, hot spots, convergent plate boundaries; picrites and boninites are typically found in back arc areas where oceanic crust is being melted in a water saturated environment; ancient komatiite and other ultramafic lavas were formed from a higher geothermal gradient and are unknown now.

**Mafic (basaltic)
SiO2 < 50%
Fe-Mg ~ 4%
Temperature: up to ~1200°C
Viscosity: Low
Eruptive behavior: gentle
Distribution: divergent plate boundaries, hot spots, convergent plate boundaries; basaltic magma is typically found in areas where oceanic crust is being melted, oceanic crust contains high levels of iron.

**Andesitic Magma
SiO2 ~ 60%
Fe-Mg: ~ 3%
Temperature: ~1000°C
Viscosity: Intermediate
Eruptive behavior: explosive
Distribution: convergent plate boundaries

**Felsic (rhyolitic)
SiO2 >70%
Fe-Mg: ~ 2%
Temp: 700°C
Viscosity: High
Eruptive behavior: explosive
Distribution: hot spots in continental crust (Yellowstone National Park); this type of magma occurs mainly where continental crust, which contains large amounts of silica, is being melted, causing the explosive behavior.

(I used a summary of the aforenoted magma types from Wiki for brevity sake.)

Obviously the compilation of all the factors taken into account presents a huge problem. My point in this reply though is to refute the notion that pressure does not affect the melting points of solids. Jim your statement is untrue.


Mark Vitrone

<b>References:</b>
Blatt, Harvey and Robert J. Tracy, 1996, Petrology: Igneous, Sedimentary and Metamorphic, 2nd ed., pp. 123-132 & 194-197, Freeman, ISBN 0716724383

Ballhaus, C.G. & Glikson, A.Y., 1995, Petrology of layered mafic-ultramafic intrusions of the Giles Complex, western Musgrave Block, central Australia. AGSO Journal, 16/1&2: 69-90.