> > Don, when one explains the forces acting on a surface relative to an airmass > > changing latitude, one describe the Coriolis-effect (torsion involved). Can > > you explain your application of torsion in a comparable manner?
> Well lithosphere (and possibly a fair > bit deeper - core mantle boundary) I think it is that, that largely > describes the mechanics of early 'skating'
skating?
snip
> It's difficult trying to > assign the scale of cause and effect..
cause and effect of what? I expected that you would draw a diagram/make an explanation of forces involded - as one can do on a mass of air affected by 'coriolis'
> > > Don, when one explains the forces acting on a surface relative to an > airmass > > > changing latitude, one describe the Coriolis-effect (torsion involved). > Can > > > you explain your application of torsion in a comparable manner?
That the crust is anisotropic/ layered/ variably ductile/ brittle (competency interfaces), (where the atmosphere and the hydrosphere isn't), so there is an accent on these interfaces when it comes to considering torsional motion.
> > Well lithosphere (and possibly a fair > > bit deeper - core mantle boundary) I think it is that, that largely > > describes the mechanics of early 'skating'
> skating?
The movement on these interfaces.
> snip
> > It's difficult trying to > > assign the scale of cause and effect..
> cause and effect of what?
how the stress is transmitted through the different parts of the crust, the different scales that need to be taken into account, and the strain effects that result.
>I expected that you would draw a diagram/make an > explanation of forces involved - as one can do on a mass of air affected by > 'coriolis'
Coriolis EFFECT, not a force, though the differential torsions result in forces as things move into regimes of different momentum.
Anyhow, fair go. 've already drawn a fair few diagrams that illustrate the broad picture. Moreover, any drawing needs to be fixed to the geology, not some imaginiary 'coriolis concept' akin to convection - or we'll end up with something similar to the plate tectonics (again). You're talking about probably close to a century of serious mapping to define the data, before undertaking any detail. I've only outlined some of the framework. And it's not easy drawing up that stuff up in three dimensions. You have to *see* it first, and the track record shows that is not something that comes easily to people. Even less the way their favourite 'concepts' get in the way of the facts (check out Mummy Bear/ three bears post)
Coming at it from a geological point of view and being prepared to pay attention to the anisotropies just mentioned, and noticing the different sorts of behaviours that go on at different scales puts it all in a different ball-park from the simple comparison you're talking about. Anyone going about it that way? Forget it. It's a mapping job in the first instance. All I meant was a very loose analogy, related to the polewards swing of the Pangaean hemispheres. You see the mess plate tectonics has made of the geology thus far, with it's half-century of arithmetic that 'proves convection'. It's not the way to approach it. Ask somebody with the arithmetic to take that sort of anisotropy into account and see what they say, about how simple it is. Robert Grumbine or Stu are bound to post a helpful note for you.
Why are you persisting with this Carsten? All I have to say is posted on my site.
> > > > Don, when one explains the forces acting on a surface relative to an > > airmass > > > > changing latitude, one describe the Coriolis-effect (torsion involved). > > Can > > > > you explain your application of torsion in a comparable manner?
> > > Yes, I do think the coriolis effect is worth following up. > > > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/carsten.html> Though it all needs to > > > be compressed into the crust.
> > meaning?
> That the crust is anisotropic/ layered/ variably ductile/ brittle > (competency interfaces), (where the atmosphere and the hydrosphere > isn't), so there is an accent on these interfaces when it comes to > considering torsional motion.
You still have not applied the differential effect of torsion (different momentum) on the different parts of the crust to picture (presumably) the direction of the movement of it. Yet you do not hesitate to scetch a neat spiral as (presumably) the propagation of the spreadingridge ... where is the connection?
Your answer implies that you talk about the Coriolis effect as it manifests itself in the crustal movement.
> > > Well lithosphere (and possibly a fair > > > bit deeper - core mantle boundary) I think it is that, that largely > > > describes the mechanics of early 'skating'
> > skating?
> The movement on these interfaces.
Putting it that way would prevent misunderstanding
> > snip
> > > It's difficult trying to > > > assign the scale of cause and effect..
> > cause and effect of what?
> how the stress is transmitted through the different parts of the > crust, the different scales that need to be taken into account, and > the strain effects that result.
That is, how the Coriolis effect manifests itself?
> >I expected that you would draw a diagram/make an > > explanation of forces involved - as one can do on a mass of air affected by > > 'coriolis'
> Coriolis EFFECT, not a force, though the differential torsions result > in forces as things move into regimes of different momentum.
Isn't that what you try to outline in your application of torsion?
> Anyhow, fair go. 've already drawn a fair few diagrams that > illustrate the broad picture.
You sure have, but fail to explain a picture of what? And it wouldn't be a good idea to use your own litteral inventions.
> Moreover, any drawing needs to be fixed > to the geology, not some imaginiary 'coriolis concept' akin to > convection
if you insist to refuse to use any but your own litteral inventions, then do it without us.
snip
> Coming at it from a geological point of view and being prepared to pay > attention to the anisotropies just mentioned, and noticing the > different sorts of behaviours that go on at different scales puts it > all in a different ball-park from the simple comparison you're talking > about.
I'm just asking for what forces you apply where
> Anyone going about it that way? Forget it. It's a mapping > job in the first instance. All I meant was a very loose analogy, > related to the polewards swing of the Pangaean hemispheres. You see > the mess plate tectonics has made of the geology thus far,
Take a look at what you'r doing
> with it's > half-century of arithmetic that 'proves convection'.
It's not a proof. When a fluid cools, it happens that way.
> It's not the way > to approach it. Ask somebody with the arithmetic to take that sort of > anisotropy into account and see what they say, about how simple it is. > Robert Grumbine or Stu are bound to post a helpful note for you.
> Why are you persisting with this Carsten?
Becourse you don't answer my questions though I've tried to be extremely specific.
> All I have to say is > posted on my site.
Where you dismiss PT under these three headlines
1. The connected, single-set, global extent of their growth (figures below). 2. The aggregate, spiral symmetry shown by that growth relative to the Earth's rotational axis. 3. The stepped offsets of transform terminations by which the evolution of the ocean floors is inscripted
Since it will not be possible to get a straight answer from you, I cannot but comment
1) If this is a significant issue it is likely to dismiss EE as well 2) You have persistently avoided to go into practical details 3) You see the stepped offset as a zipper. If EE can be unzipped, why not PT
All of your headlines takes considerable imagination to account for it's influence on the PT/EE question. And you deliver. It's fatal though, that it is not possible to get straight answers on simple questions to you.
BUT! When the Moon orbits around to the point of least influence - doesn't strata subsides back whence it came if there is no supporting structure in place?
> > Let's stick to the simplest problem: Where is all the extra matter coming > > from, to push material outward?
> The simplest answer is the Moon; it's coming from the Moon. The Moon > is exerting a gravitational pull on the Earth's innards (shift in the > barycentre) which is therefore pushing out through the surface of the > Earth (in the Pacific. Pangaean reconstruction necessitates shifting > the Earth's core:- > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/christmas.html> > Decompression of the interior may also be involved. > Speculation: prograde Moon Capture has transferred kinetic energy to > the Earth, which provides the necessary input of energy above original > 'budget', causing decompression, enlargement, differential motion of > the differentiated shells and crustal deformation.
> Howzzat? (Everyone getting about upsetting the rocks when the answer > is smiling down on them (when they're asleep).
> BUT! When the Moon orbits around to the point of least influence - doesn't > strata subsides back whence it came if there is no supporting structure in > place?
>> The simplest answer is the Moon; it's coming from the Moon. The Moon >> is exerting a gravitational pull on the Earth's innards (shift in the >> barycentre) which is therefore pushing out through the surface of the >> Earth (in the Pacific. Pangaean reconstruction necessitates shifting >> the Earth's core:-
Dork! The moon exerts a very small gravitational pull on the earth's interior compared, for instance, with its pull on the oceans. Certainly not enough to "pull" the mantle to the surface. And even if it could, that still wouldn't explain where the "extra" material would have to come from. I suggest you go into neurosurgery. You can't do any worse than you are with geology.
"Timothy Casey" <ReplaceOhWithZeroNumbersOnly11...@fieldcraft.biz> wrote in message <news:40e106e7$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au>... > BUT! When the Moon orbits around to the point of least influence - doesn't > strata subsides back whence it came if there is no supporting structure in > place?
Up to half a metre a **DAY**, Tim. How many millimetres of 'left-over-relax' do you think numerancers might calculate before the next hike catches up?
> > BUT! When the Moon orbits around to the point of least influence - doesn't > > strata subsides back whence it came if there is no supporting structure in > > place?
> Up to half a metre a **DAY**, Tim. How many millimetres of > 'left-over-relax' do you think numerancers might calculate before the > next hike catches up?
If the variation is elastic, as indicated by processes such as isostatic rebound, then the "left-over-relax" may go both ways. However, I wonder what would provide structural support to prevent the raised mass from collapsing back far enough on average to remain in keeping with gravity. An expanding system relying on structural support will see a decay of expansion as it nears the point where material strength cannot support ovehead weight. In natural systems such as steepening hill slopes, this occurs quickly from a geological standpoint, and while terain is rapidly uplifted, slopes remain within a few degrees of maximum.
For an expanding system to continue without collapsing back to it's stable density under gravity, we need input of matter: So perhaps the first question is where is all this extra matter coming from?
"Timothy Casey" <ReplaceOhWithZeroNumbersOnly11...@fieldcraft.biz> wrote in message <news:40e3aa99_1@news.iprimus.com.au>... > "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote in message > news:5f164087.0406291732.3dec8e76@posting.google.com... > > "Timothy Casey" <ReplaceOhWithZeroNumbersOnly11...@fieldcraft.biz> wrote > in message <news:40e106e7$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au>... > > > BUT! When the Moon orbits around to the point of least influence - > doesn't > > > strata subsides back whence it came if there is no supporting structure > in > > > place?
> > Up to half a metre a **DAY**, Tim. How many millimetres of > > 'left-over-relax' do you think numerancers might calculate before the > > next hike catches up?
> If the variation is elastic, as indicated by processes such as isostatic > rebound, then the "left-over-relax" may go both ways. However, I wonder what > would provide structural support to prevent the raised mass from collapsing > back far enough on average to remain in keeping with gravity.
For a start, "elastic" is a nice idea in theory, but it bears limited relevance to the multivaried, anisotropc reality of a layered Earth in which bits of it are more 'elastic'/ 'inelastic' than others. And "to remain in keeping with gravity" is of course the name of the game. If the Moon comes along (with momentum), that 'gravitational equilibrium' is going to change over time, and the common centre with it, so a system with a changing "collapsing back" picture is going to reflect that stabilisation. How much drift would we be needing to detect in 'up to half a metre a day' divided by 365, to give us something of the order of 1cm a year, which might reflect that stabilisation. To my way of thinking it's not so much a question of support to accommodate isostatic fall-back, it's a question of wholesale "pull it all this way". There's one for the numberologists: which responds the most to pull? ...the brittle skin, the ductile mantle, or the fluid/ ductile core?
> An expanding > system relying on structural support will see a decay of expansion as it > nears the point where material strength cannot support ovehead weight. In > natural systems such as steepening hill slopes, this occurs quickly from a > geological standpoint, and while terain is rapidly uplifted, slopes remain > within a few degrees of maximum.
You mean maybe like when the Pacific diapir pushes through the crust, and then it all starts to collapse?
> For an expanding system to continue without collapsing back to it's stable > density under gravity, we need input of matter: So perhaps the first > question is where is all this extra matter coming from?
I'm really surprised people keep asking this question. Even as the current plate tectonic Paradigm goes, it's all "depressurisation" to give partial melting at ridges (no more the magmas from the bowels of the earth). So what happens when we depressurise the 'pea-in-the-football-park' to relax the spacing of mass particles in that plasma 'soup' down there? I don't know, but I don't see that the question is much addressed in the context of 'phase change', when it maybe should be. The continents have separated? Slabs of mantle pulling things around? Breaking open the drust? What would happen deep down if that 'electric soup' (just to think of it a bit differently from olivines and pyroxenes and such-like field stabilities) had the lid taken off it? Nobody ever seems to give that any thought, they're all so hung up on the gas stove and the porridge and the rumble-tumble of "mild steel". Mild steel? I'll bet on the electric soup, and keep my options open about how all of that stuff is created in the first place.
George ... not that I especially disagree with you as to conclusion, but what constructive did your note accomplish?
I'd like to see if the message can get through to Don that he has to do more than wave words like 'torsion' around to have science at hand. Granted the experiment has already been done, but if so, well, it's my own time I waste.
-- Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
>> The mathematics (geophysics) are _not_ a matter of making up >> numbers. They are central to the business of comparing your >> descriptions and predictions with reality (observations). >> If you are going to dodge entirely being quantitative (incidentally, >> number 2 was qualitative and you fail to answer that either). >> Without comparing your descriptions and predictions quantitatively >> to observations, you really are merely playing word salad.
>I'm not trying to dodge the numbers (I'm not up to them anyway); I'm >trying to set the parameters.
Parameters are numbers.
>In matters of numbers the main thing is >getting the scale of the action right (sense of proportion), and in >matters plate tectonics, I don't see much evidence of 'meshing'. >Everything is dealt with (by numbers) piecemeal, and it doesn't seem >to matter very much that there are glitches round the edges; nothing >'meshes'.
I knew some folks who work on tectonic modelling and earth reconstruction through its history. 'meshing' was one of their most common concerns. That you don't see evidence of either the fact, or the concern in the field, says more about how you're looking than the field.
>> >Rate of expansion. I've never looked at the time slices of the ocean >> >floor. . They're worked out on cooling curves which I think is wrong.
>> They're also worked out by radio-dating of the rocks. Do you not >> accept the validity of radio-dating?
>YEs, for now since I've never thought that much about it, but I don't >know if I would if I did. I understand there are people who do think >about these things say it's not all it's cracked up to be, not set in >stone so to speak.
Young earth creationists are not a good place for you to look for comfort. (rather, they're an excellent place, in that they'll agree with anything that attacks mainstream science. They're only not a good source if you'd like your support to come from people who know anything about what they're talking about.)
>(I also read people still talking about potassium >as a source of heat driving convection, so I'm not particularly >overcome with credulity)
Too bad. Potassium 40 does exist, and it does decay. In decaying, it does release energy. However you prefer to slice it, that energy has to go somewhere. If you're going to reject it going to heating up rocks it's in, you'll have to show where that energy goes instead. (Add the Uranium and Thorium isotopes to that energy balance as well.)
>... But anyhow, as I understand it, the ocean >floors are based mainly on posited cooling curves.
Read any standard text on geology. The dating of the sea floor is by radiodating.
[snip]
>> Why? Plate relative motion is something that >> _is_ observed even by GPS over even a year or two -- order 5 cm/year. >> Why can that be observed in a year or two but your expansion can't >> be observed at all?
>It's the scale thing, the 'let-this-be-that-and-that-be-this' thing, >the 'headers-at -the-top-of-the-page' thing. Getting the parameters >right before going to numbers. There is expansion, and there is >torsion.
Yes, you keep asserting that there is expansion. But you present absolutely nothing to support that there is, whether by direct observation or by physical effect on anything else that is observable.
You requested some questions. I provided some. Repeatedly saying that they're the wrong questions is not an answer.
Nor have you defined what you mean by 'torsion'. Whatever it is, it isn't what I know by way of either physics or mathematics (two distinctly different definitions).
Failing to answer any of the questions, and then introducing more undefined terms ... not going to advance an explanation.
>think it's reasonable to think of the torsional effect being the >whispering tumbleweed, and the expansion maybe being more like a >hurricane when it happens (The big-signal earthquakes, the up to >'half-a metre-a day' tidal Moonpull) that are deliberately filtered >out so that we get a better listen to the whisper (what I mean by >setting the parameters at the top of the page before going to numbers)
The crustal deformations due to the lunar tidal force are on the order of 10 cm, not 50 cm. 50 cm is for the oceans, which are less dense and have zero elastic strength.
>Just in the passing, ...Plate tectonics ignores the evidence for >global torsion in the crust:-
Plate tectonics isn't the question.
You requested, and I provided, questions about _your_ idea. Even if plate tectonics were utterly false, this does not mean that you are in any way, shape, or form, correct. If you could answer questions like those I posed, then you might have something to bring to the table.
[snip]
>> VLBI goes back over 40 years, by the way. >Yup: Amazing isn't it? And they've been a long time ignoring the >global torsion that they're now fixing to precipitate on a world just >thirsting for world that doubts the evidence of their own eyes and >thirsts for guidance from on high.
'thirsts' is not an answer to why your expansion is not observed.
>> > And even if you could observe it by GPS, I would advise to ignore >> >it. Where precisely on that image of "Grace" gravity/ isostasy might >> >the vertical increase be, and due to what? And what if it started to >> >invert/ go backwards/ go downwards? Would that 'prove' that it >> >wasn't expanding after all? How long do you think it would be OK to >> >sit observing the meter, before accepting that Yes, the Earth is/ is >> >not getting bigger?
>> The earth is a spheroid (you agree, right?). If it is expanding, >> then points on the surface _must_ be moving apart laterally. >> That fact relies on mathematics, which you're dodging, but those >> of us who understand math understand this fact too, and you look >> extremely bad for dodging it.
>Of course they're moving apart laterally. (I don't get you.) And I'm >not dodging it, just trying to put up the headers that deal with that. > You just don't know ON THE DAY - or any day - or over any span of >time - what PROPORTION of movement is due to torsion, or due to >expansion. The mechanics are "TORSION-IN-EXPANSION" but they are not >(necessarily) one-to-one simultaneous equivalents.
There's no difficulty in observing multiple concurrent motions, and then separating out which is providing which. The surface of the earth is still a connected structure (mathematically speaking) showing itself as a slightly oblate spheroid. If there were expansion, it would show itself quite easily -- unless you're going to claim that the expansion ended some time before we got VLBI going. Of course in that case, you'll also have to explain why it stopped.
[snip]
>> Math is _not_ a matter of "let-this-be this and that be that", >> especially not math in science, where the parameters must come from >> observation. Since you throw out all possibility of observation, and >> ignore all possible effect of your processes, you've got nothing.
>"Must come from observation"? "got nothing"? .... You mean like plate >tectonics has something? Then we're not on the same wavelength here. >The entirety of plate tectonics hinges on subduction, which depends on >some theory of a panthalassa (which we don't see, and have no evidence >for)
Hardly. If everything we've ever observed or theorized about the earth were lost today, plates would be reinvented within the year. VLBI and GPS observed motions, distribution of volcanoes, distribution of earthquakes, and distribution of seismic velocities mandate a platey structure for the upper earth.
-- Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
> > The mathematics (geophysics) are _not_ a matter of making up > > numbers. They are central to the business of comparing your > > descriptions and predictions with reality (observations). > > If you are going to dodge entirely being quantitative (incidentally, > > number 2 was qualitative and you fail to answer that either). > > Without comparing your descriptions and predictions quantitatively > > to observations, you really are merely playing word salad.
> I'm not trying to dodge the numbers (I'm not up to them anyway); I'm > trying to set the parameters. In matters of numbers the main thing is > getting the scale of the action right (sense of proportion), and in > matters plate tectonics, I don't see much evidence of 'meshing'. > Everything is dealt with (by numbers) piecemeal, and it doesn't seem > to matter very much that there are glitches round the edges; nothing > 'meshes'.
> > >Rate of expansion. I've never looked at the time slices of the ocean > > >floor. . They're worked out on cooling curves which I think is wrong.
> > They're also worked out by radio-dating of the rocks. Do you not > > accept the validity of radio-dating?
> YEs, for now since I've never thought that much about it, but I don't > know if I would if I did. I understand there are people who do think > about these things say it's not all it's cracked up to be, not set in > stone so to speak. (I also read people still talking about potassium > as a source of heat driving convection, so I'm not particularly > overcome with credulity) ... But anyhow, as I understand it, the ocean > floors are based mainly on posited cooling curves. (I've never read > of anyone putting numbers around the idea that slopes are a function > of gravitational correction - although at the same time just about > everybody is ready to claim "ridge-push") (which also does nothing for > me). Maybe in support of plate tectonics you could establish which > is the more important - thermal contraction or gravitational > correction, ..and look out, I'm watching for the '10,9,8,7,6, and 5's > eleven' trick.
> > Is your earth expansion something that only happens when people > > aren't observing it?
> Usually they are in bed and asleep for some reason, when the ground > shakes and the city falls down.
> > Why? Plate relative motion is something that > > _is_ observed even by GPS over even a year or two -- order 5 cm/year. > > Why can that be observed in a year or two but your expansion can't > > be observed at all?
> It's the scale thing, the 'let-this-be-that-and-that-be-this' thing, > the 'headers-at -the-top-of-the-page' thing. Getting the parameters > right before going to numbers. There is expansion, and there is > torsion. Symmetry and geometry say it's reasonable to think that the > torsion is related to the Earth's rotation. HOwever not so with > expansion, ...not until it's understood what might be causing it. > But it is reasonable to think that the two *could* be differently > sourced (opposite sides of the same coin, maybe). So when we see GPS > results, we cannot say with certainty whether they belong to the > expansion, or the torsion. The entire seaboard of the Western Pacific > testifies to torsion, as in fact does the way the entire NUVEL GPS > stacks up (that image on my 'madagascar' page again:- > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/madagascar.html>) In other words I > think it's reasonable to think of the torsional effect being the > whispering tumbleweed, and the expansion maybe being more like a > hurricane when it happens (The big-signal earthquakes, the up to > 'half-a metre-a day' tidal Moonpull) that are deliberately filtered > out so that we get a better listen to the whisper (what I mean by > setting the parameters at the top of the page before going to numbers)
> Just in the passing, ...Plate tectonics ignores the evidence for > global torsion in the crust:- > <htttp://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/drivel.html> (an amazing, > and hardly believable thing in itself). Plate tectonics - as it > refers to what we see at the Earth's surface, i.e., excluding notions > of convection, and focussing on the subduction/overriding alternatives > (an interesting shift in the lexicon of pteros who seem not to > understand what that means), is the mickey mouse version of Global > Torsion. Once the Ptero-notion of the Earth being "Segmented into a > Number of plates" is dropped, and instead (Like NASA is doing now - > talking about Earth tectonics being seen as an "actual > representational" integrated whole, rather than the notion of 'plates' > as "schematic" "in the past") <http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/dtam/> > then they'll come around to the idea of global torsion, being the the > principal expression of what we see. Once they do that then the > whole edifice of plate tectonics collapses. Spot the Ripper on their > map on that last link. ("TORSION 1").
> > VLBI goes back over 40 years, by the way. > Yup: Amazing isn't it? And they've been a long time ignoring the > global torsion that they're now fixing to precipitate on a world just > thirsting for world that doubts the evidence of their own eyes and > thirsts for guidance from on high.
> > > And even if you could observe it by GPS, I would advise to ignore > > >it. Where precisely on that image of "Grace" gravity/ isostasy might > > >the vertical increase be, and due to what? And what if it started to > > >invert/ go backwards/ go downwards? Would that 'prove' that it > > >wasn't expanding after all? How long do you think it would be OK to > > >sit observing the meter, before accepting that Yes, the Earth is/ is > > >not getting bigger?
> > The earth is a spheroid (you agree, right?). If it is expanding, > > then points on the surface _must_ be moving apart laterally. > > That fact relies on mathematics, which you're dodging, but those > > of us who understand math understand this fact too, and you look > > extremely bad for dodging it.
> Of course they're moving apart laterally. (I don't get you.) And I'm > not dodging it, just trying to put up the headers that deal with that. > You just don't know ON THE DAY - or any day - or over any span of > time - what PROPORTION of movement is due to torsion, or due to > expansion. The mechanics are "TORSION-IN-EXPANSION" but they are not > (necessarily) one-to-one simultaneous equivalents. There are large > swivelling detachments of the crust > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/rupenin.html> (not generally > recognised in the consensus, but pretty obvious nevertheless I would > have thought). The mechanics of the deformation related to > transforms are different from the mechanics of deformation due to > crust-mantle decoupling (though the two are related).
> > On the other hand, it's worse that you blithely throw out any possibility > > of observing the effect you are claiming exists.
> > >There's an entire ocean floor out there proving > > >increase in size, and no proof whatsoever for reductional compensation > > >(see companion thread FAQS- plate tectonics) after the style of > > >convection. Overriding is just as acceptable (as along the American > > >margin/ Atlantic opening), but negates the need for convection. The > > >whole symmetry of Atlantic opening is symmetrical with the north pole > > >(Euler poles). There is nothing about convection that implicates the > > >pole of the Earth;'s rotation . So forget convection for the > > >Atlantic, unless you can think of a way to link it to the Earth's > > >rotation.
> > Word salad.
> Poofy-pejorative-keep-it-clean)
> > >I can't answer your other questions. Maybe if you are of a > > >mathematical/ physical disposition you could have a go yourself. But > > >you have to allow the premise in the first place: that the Earth is > > >increasing in size. That's what you need to put at the top of your > > >"let-this-be this and that be that' page. Expansion will not come > > >from the mathematics (though it might gain some support if somebody > > >can figure right), but from the empirical observations, and the > > >inferences deduced therefrom that let the mathematics be done (GIGO).
> > Math is _not_ a matter of "let-this-be this and that be that", > > especially not math in science, where the parameters must come from > > observation. Since you throw out all possibility of observation, and > > ignore all possible effect of your processes, you've got nothing.
> "Must come from observation"? "got nothing"? .... You mean like plate > tectonics has something? Then we're not on the same wavelength here. > The entirety of plate tectonics hinges on subduction, which depends on > some theory of a panthalassa (which we don't see, and have no evidence > for)
> > If your problem were that you can't do the algebra to examine the > > quantitative implications of your expansion, that's a different > > matter -- you could provide the quantitative observations you have > > to someone more competent in the math. But you have no quantitative > > observations and are denying (per GPS comments above) the possibility > > of getting any.
> My entire site deals with the QUALITATIVE observations ONLY. If > somebody wants to run a slide rule over it (and you could spend a > lifetime and five careers doing it) then that's fine, but I don't > think it's necessary to see that detail in order to appreciate the > overview. It's where it's leading I think is interesting. But sure, > you can stop and smell the roses. Why not.
> > Why should any scientist be interested in a theory when it is > > not quantitatively observable and
> In article <ihhDc.959$pr2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, > George <geo...@george.net> wrote:
> [all snipped]
> George ... not that I especially disagree with you as to conclusion, > but what constructive did your note accomplish?
> I'd like to see if the message can get through to Don that he > has to do more than wave words like 'torsion' around to have science > at hand. Granted the experiment has already been done, but if so, > well, it's my own time I waste.
Good luck with that. Don and I have had these arguments many times in the past. He has never proven any of them to be correct, simply because it is a fantasy. When you ask questions, he is elusive. When you ask for references, he has none. When you ask him to publish his results, he goes on a rant about "consensus science". When you ask him to explain the science, you get gobbltigoop, or a rant about how wrong plate techonics is, despite his own admission of knowing absolutely nothing about the plate techtonics at all. Yes, it is your time to waste. I would think that you could find better things with which to waste your time. This one is a dead end.
>I have to say that the manner of your expression is delightful and I >truly enjoy it.I quite understand that the astronomical facet of the >Earth's rotation does not hold your interest and I appreceate your >honesty in that respect however it is far better to assign it as >unfamiliarity rather than pretend to understand it as is common among >those who would have you believe that they have a profound >understanding of the universe,I assure you they do not.
>You have every reason to take the Earth's rotation as a factor in >crustal motion and the evolution of physical features into account >however it is much more apppreceable when the effects of this rotation >are calculated against variable orbital motion.
>The planet Venus is more or less the same size as the Earth but >exhibits a unique trait,it spins in the opposite direction to the sun >and subsequently its noteworthy physical feature in the lack of >them,it is almost entirely smooth.
Wow. You hold it to be the direction of Venus's rotation that is the striking point, as you point to rotation being important in crustal structure.
Ok. _Why_ is the direction the important factor and _not_ the fact that Venus's period of rotation is 243 (earth) days long?
-- Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
What do you mean "arguments"? It takes two to tango, and you've been either like a sackful of brown potatoes to drag around, or a cross between a cricket and a hoptoad, jumping with your mouse, pulling your self with everything under the sun except the matter in hand.
'Click-click'. You've still got to answer the question about what all those dyke intrusions making up the ocean floors are supposed to be feeding (oh you mean they just stop right there, when meeting the water?) and What the rodding represents, ..when you've done that you can tackle the one about stratigraphic sequence on the continents. And then the one about mountains. And the Panthalassa of fossils that are missing from the stratigraphic record. You were very quiet on the Three Bears too, what happened to you? Oh yes, I remember, ..you went to look at a mountain: George Washington's nose.
> He has never proven any of them to be correct, simply because it is a fantasy. > When you ask questions, he is elusive. When you ask for references, he has > none. When you ask him to publish his results, he goes on a rant about > "consensus science". When you ask him to explain the science, you get > gobbltigoop, or a rant about how wrong plate techonics is, despite his own > admission of knowing absolutely nothing about the plate techtonics at all. Yes, > it is your time to waste. I would think that you could find better things with > which to waste your time. This one is a dead end.
b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote in message <news:10eb90smj8scnac@corp.supernews.com>... > In article <273f8e06.0407020830.748a2...@posting.google.com>, > Oriel36 <geraldkelle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip of text irrelevant to Oriel's new point]
> >Don
> >I have to say that the manner of your expression is delightful and I > >truly enjoy it.I quite understand that the astronomical facet of the > >Earth's rotation does not hold your interest and I appreceate your > >honesty in that respect however it is far better to assign it as > >unfamiliarity rather than pretend to understand it as is common among > >those who would have you believe that they have a profound > >understanding of the universe,I assure you they do not.
> >You have every reason to take the Earth's rotation as a factor in > >crustal motion and the evolution of physical features into account > >however it is much more apppreceable when the effects of this rotation > >are calculated against variable orbital motion.
> >The planet Venus is more or less the same size as the Earth but > >exhibits a unique trait,it spins in the opposite direction to the sun > >and subsequently its noteworthy physical feature in the lack of > >them,it is almost entirely smooth.
> Wow. You hold it to be the direction of Venus's rotation that is > the striking point, as you point to rotation being important in > crustal structure.
It would be highly unusual if it was'nt and unfortunately you have zero chance of discussing it and especially the differential between constant axial rotation and variable orbital motion.
You appear content to keep axial rotation constant to stellar circumpolar motion and the 23 hour 56 min 04 sec equivalency therefore I simply would have nothing to discuss with you.Perhaps you are better off in talk.origins or some other simpleminded groups.
> Ok. _Why_ is the direction the important factor and _not_ > the fact that Venus's period of rotation is 243 (earth) days > long?
I have already indicated to geologists why physicists and astronomers are totally useless in considering the effects of astronomical motions on crustal movements and physical features on the planet insofar as fundamentally they are an intrinsic part of each other (i.e. geology and astronomy ).It is your priviledge to believe that no association exists but I suspect that geologists would begin to think otherwise.
You believe the universe rotating round the Earth is valid,well, have a ball.
Oriel36 <geraldkelle...@hotmail.com> wrote: >b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote in message ><news:10eb90smj8scnac@corp.supernews.com>... >> In article <273f8e06.0407020830.748a2...@posting.google.com>, >> Oriel36 <geraldkelle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip of text irrelevant to Oriel's new point]
>> >Don
>> >I have to say that the manner of your expression is delightful and I >> >truly enjoy it.I quite understand that the astronomical facet of the >> >Earth's rotation does not hold your interest and I appreceate your >> >honesty in that respect however it is far better to assign it as >> >unfamiliarity rather than pretend to understand it as is common among >> >those who would have you believe that they have a profound >> >understanding of the universe,I assure you they do not.
>> >You have every reason to take the Earth's rotation as a factor in >> >crustal motion and the evolution of physical features into account >> >however it is much more apppreceable when the effects of this rotation >> >are calculated against variable orbital motion.
>> >The planet Venus is more or less the same size as the Earth but >> >exhibits a unique trait,it spins in the opposite direction to the sun >> >and subsequently its noteworthy physical feature in the lack of >> >them,it is almost entirely smooth.
>> Wow. You hold it to be the direction of Venus's rotation that is >> the striking point, as you point to rotation being important in >> crustal structure.
>It would be highly unusual if it was'nt and unfortunately you have >zero chance of discussing it and especially the differential between >constant axial rotation and variable orbital motion.
Oriel, is English not your native language? This isn't a sentence. The first 'and' occurs at the end of what could be a sentence. The next stretch up to the 'and' could be a sentence. The third and-spliced string of words just doesn't make sense linguistically. ('the differential' -- no differential has been mentioned, and the differential described is given no value, nor is it something that actually has a difference in the sense described.)
Regardless of native language, if you're going to argue science, it's a good idea to do it in a language you have command of. the following parts
>You appear content to keep axial rotation constant to stellar >circumpolar motion and the 23 hour 56 min 04 sec equivalency therefore >I simply would have nothing to discuss with you.
Again, you're missing proper sentence division.
>Perhaps you are better >off in talk.origins or some other simpleminded groups.
A sentence at last. Alas, it occurs merely for personal attack.
>> Ok. _Why_ is the direction the important factor and _not_ >> the fact that Venus's period of rotation is 243 (earth) days >> long?
>I have already indicated to geologists why physicists and astronomers >are totally useless in considering the effects of astronomical motions >on crustal movements and physical features on the planet insofar as >fundamentally they are an intrinsic part of each other (i.e. geology >and astronomy ).
With a loose notion of sentence, that is one. Unfortunately, it does nothing whatever to answer the question.
>It is your priviledge to believe that no association >exists but I suspect that geologists would begin to think otherwise.
Again you fail to break sentences properly.
You've actually given no reason for geologists (of which I could be one for all you know) to believe there to be any reason to relate orbital motion and axial rotation to geological structures. You have asserted that the retrograde rotation of Venus is the cause of its structure. That is not the only major difference between it and the earth. It also rotates vastly more slowly; and it has a far less eccentric orbit than the earth. For no reason you explain, you seize one of those differences. That's useless to everyone else. If you want others to use your notions, you'll need to supply reasons why only one of the three differences matters. You'll also have to supply the reasons why it is that one.
>You believe the universe rotating round the Earth is valid,well, have >a ball.
Again, you don't write a sentence. It's also untrue. But that hardly matters to you. Right?
-- Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote in message <news:10eds4fk9bl8cc8@corp.supernews.com>... > In article <273f8e06.0407030914.45d7f...@posting.google.com>, > Oriel36 <geraldkelle...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote in message > ><news:10eb90smj8scnac@corp.supernews.com>... > >> In article <273f8e06.0407020830.748a2...@posting.google.com>, > >> Oriel36 <geraldkelle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> [snip of text irrelevant to Oriel's new point]
> >> >Don
> >> >I have to say that the manner of your expression is delightful and I > >> >truly enjoy it.I quite understand that the astronomical facet of the > >> >Earth's rotation does not hold your interest and I appreceate your > >> >honesty in that respect however it is far better to assign it as > >> >unfamiliarity rather than pretend to understand it as is common among > >> >those who would have you believe that they have a profound > >> >understanding of the universe,I assure you they do not.
> >> >You have every reason to take the Earth's rotation as a factor in > >> >crustal motion and the evolution of physical features into account > >> >however it is much more apppreceable when the effects of this rotation > >> >are calculated against variable orbital motion.
> >> >The planet Venus is more or less the same size as the Earth but > >> >exhibits a unique trait,it spins in the opposite direction to the sun > >> >and subsequently its noteworthy physical feature in the lack of > >> >them,it is almost entirely smooth.
> >> Wow. You hold it to be the direction of Venus's rotation that is > >> the striking point, as you point to rotation being important in > >> crustal structure.
> >It would be highly unusual if it was'nt and unfortunately you have > >zero chance of discussing it and especially the differential between > >constant axial rotation and variable orbital motion.
> -- no differential has been mentioned, and the differential described > is given no value, nor is it something that actually has a difference > in the sense described.)
You are in a position to judge nothing,you already stated that the Earth's rotates constantly through 360 degrees in 23 hour 56 min 04 and this alone cuts you off from the ability to consider the effects of the Earth's rotation on the physical evolutionary features on the Earth's crust.
> You've actually given no reason for geologists (of which I could be > one for all you know) to believe there to be any reason to relate > orbital motion and axial rotation to geological structures.
I give geologists every reason to consider that the Earth's astronomical motions have a direct bearing on the continuing evolution of its physical features.My contribution so far is to point out that the physics/astronomical community cannot even get the fundamental rotation rate of the Earth right therefore the natural linkage between geological development and planetary motions is absent from discussion.
I do not expect geologists to go further than is necessary in dealing with a physics community that combines axial and orbital motion into a single sidereal motion and determines axial rotation through 360 degrees to be 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.
> asserted that the retrograde rotation of Venus is the cause of its > structure. That is not the only major difference between it and the > earth. It also rotates vastly more slowly; and it has a far less > eccentric orbit than the earth.
That's the style !,now you are thinking like a man rather than a nuisance.Surprisingly,I found an article dealing with the friction between mantle and crust in respect to the rotation of Venus and it appears that Don,although he has left me stranded with physics freaks,has indeed a case.
Perhaps the differential between axial and orbital motion is too advanced for you (no offense intended) and in respect to comparing Venus with Earth,you unwittingly expanded on the very factors that I deem to be absent from the study of the Earth's physical evolutionary features.Pity that you are stuck with Newton's flawed astronomical reasoning which stresses geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency.
For no reason you explain, you
> seize one of those differences. That's useless to everyone else.
What happens to your neat gravitational solutions when retrograde rotation is introduced.I am not even interested in your 'gravity wells' and the nonsense of the early 20th century insofar as the error begins with Newton and the manner in which he attempted to explain Kepler's planetary laws for orbital motion.In any case,I already pointed out where the error occured,take it or leave it.
> If you want others to use your notions, you'll need to supply > reasons why only one of the three differences matters. You'll also > have to supply the reasons why it is that one.
Not at all,this is an unmoderated forum and participants either see connections or they don't.There is no pressure to affirm or deny anything yet if you maintain that the astronomical justification for the sidereal value is valid you are not in a position to consider anything worthwhile.
If there are geologists who wish discuss the evolutionary physical features of the Earth as though it were stationary,I would'nt want to hear about it and likewise physicists/astronomers who also like to keep things stationary ('every point is the valid center of the universe').
The difference is cutting axial rotation loose from stellar circumpolar motion and appreceating greater centers of rotation,the Earth on its axis,around the Sun and around the galactic axis.Only then can you discuss the effects of the Earth's motions on the evolution of physical features,anything else is geocentrism or worse.
> >You believe the universe rotating round the Earth is valid,well, have > >a ball.
> Again, you don't write a sentence. It's also untrue. But that > hardly matters to you. Right?
" If it were crustal motions, one might also expect differences in the motion of fixed stars as observed by people on different parts of the crust.
But neither is observed. Everybody sees the same time between crossings of the fixed stars.
Note, too, that all the preceding is equally true if you prefer to consider the rest of the universe to be moving around the earth."
So,people are supposed to be shocked by your statement and the 'every valid point is the center' does represent what the physics community adheres to,frankly it is that embarrassing that even the creationists look sane.
Let me spare you an obvious response,I deal in known rotations around common centers,the Earth on its axis,around the Sun and around the Milky Way axis,presently these astronomical motions are sufficient to build a link with geology and the evolution of physical features.I do not say that astronomical motions are a be all and end all factor,what I do say is that presently no such linkage between geology and astronomical motions exist except with rare exceptions such as the website provided.
b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote in message <news:10eds4fk9bl8cc8@corp.supernews.com>... > In article <273f8e06.0407030914.45d7f...@posting.google.com>, > Oriel36 <geraldkelle...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote in message > ><news:10eb90smj8scnac@corp.supernews.com>... > >> In article <273f8e06.0407020830.748a2...@posting.google.com>, > >> Oriel36 <geraldkelle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> [snip of text irrelevant to Oriel's new point]
> >> >Don
> >> >I have to say that the manner of your expression is delightful and I > >> >truly enjoy it.I quite understand that the astronomical facet of the > >> >Earth's rotation does not hold your interest and I appreceate your > >> >honesty in that respect however it is far better to assign it as > >> >unfamiliarity rather than pretend to understand it as is common among > >> >those who would have you believe that they have a profound > >> >understanding of the universe,I assure you they do not.
> >> >You have every reason to take the Earth's rotation as a factor in > >> >crustal motion and the evolution of physical features into account > >> >however it is much more apppreceable when the effects of this rotation > >> >are calculated against variable orbital motion.
> >> >The planet Venus is more or less the same size as the Earth but > >> >exhibits a unique trait,it spins in the opposite direction to the sun > >> >and subsequently its noteworthy physical feature in the lack of > >> >them,it is almost entirely smooth.
> >> Wow. You hold it to be the direction of Venus's rotation that is > >> the striking point, as you point to rotation being important in > >> crustal structure.
> >It would be highly unusual if it was'nt and unfortunately you have > >zero chance of discussing it and especially the differential between > >constant axial rotation and variable orbital motion.
> Oriel, is English not your native language? This isn't a sentence. > The first 'and' occurs at the end of what could be a sentence. The > next stretch up to the 'and' could be a sentence. The third and-spliced > string of words just doesn't make sense linguistically. ('the differential' > -- no differential has been mentioned, and the differential described > is given no value, nor is it something that actually has a difference > in the sense described.)
> Regardless of native language, if you're going to argue science, > it's a good idea to do it in a language you have command of. > the following parts
> >You appear content to keep axial rotation constant to stellar > >circumpolar motion and the 23 hour 56 min 04 sec equivalency therefore > >I simply would have nothing to discuss with you.
> Again, you're missing proper sentence division.
> >Perhaps you are better > >off in talk.origins or some other simpleminded groups.
> A sentence at last. Alas, it occurs merely for personal attack.
> >> Ok. _Why_ is the direction the important factor and _not_ > >> the fact that Venus's period of rotation is 243 (earth) days > >> long?
> >I have already indicated to geologists why physicists and astronomers > >are totally useless in considering the effects of astronomical motions > >on crustal movements and physical features on the planet insofar as > >fundamentally they are an intrinsic part of each other (i.e. geology > >and astronomy ).
> With a loose notion of sentence, that is one. Unfortunately, > it does nothing whatever to answer the question.
> >It is your priviledge to believe that no association > >exists but I suspect that geologists would begin to think otherwise.
> Again you fail to break sentences properly.
> You've actually given no reason for geologists (of which I could be > one for all you know) to believe there to be any reason to relate > orbital motion and axial rotation to geological structures. You have > asserted that the retrograde rotation of Venus is the cause of its > structure. That is not the only major difference between it and the > earth. It also rotates vastly more slowly; and it has a far less > eccentric orbit than the earth. For no reason you explain, you > seize one of those differences.
That's the style,reason like a man instead of a nuisance and you might eventually begin to see the linkage between axial rotation,orbital motion and the evolution of physical features on the planet.Learn from geologists for a change and for goodness sake drop these 'every valid point is the center' of the universe notions.
> If you want others to use your notions, you'll need to supply > reasons why only one of the three differences matters. You'll also > have to supply the reasons why it is that one.
I will credit where it is due,a month ago I would have accepted the standard plate tectonics concept and even if I am not geologically qualified to go beyond a certain point there appears to be an association between the Earth's astronomical motions,both axial and orbital and the continuing evolution of its physical surface features.Don indeed has a case.
Opoosition to the association between planetary motion and physical evolution is not that difficult to sourse,geologists discuss physical evolution of surface features from the point of view of a stationary Earth in line with a communal consensus among physicists/astronomers to study cosmological structure and motion from an 'every valid point is the center of the universe'.
Let me spare you the obvious expected response,I am working off the three known centers of the motions of the Earth,on its axis,around the Sun and around the Milky Way axis.Long ago I worked out the principles for recognising the changing orientation of the local Milky Way stars to the remaining galaxies (think of a carousal) but find that physicists/astronomers are content with their odd celestial sphere.Subsequently I see geologists blockaded by the same tendency to view all things terrestially and cosmologically from a stationary Earth thus denying humanity of a more satisfactory explanation for the evolution of physical features on the planet and a better idea of cosmological structure and motion.
> >You believe the universe rotating round the Earth is valid,well, have > >a ball.
> Again, you don't write a sentence. It's also untrue. But that > hardly matters to you. Right?
You wrote that the universe rotating around the Earth is valid,if you are so keen to correct my descriptive shortcomings (which I admit to) I accept that your statement is clear of any ambiguity.
" If it were crustal motions, one might also expect differences in the motion of fixed stars as observed by people on different parts of the crust.
But neither is observed. Everybody sees the same time between crossings of the fixed stars.
Note, too, that all the preceding is equally true if you prefer to consider the rest of the universe to be moving around the earth."
That a geologist would find room to discuss matters of the rotation of the Earth with you is in itself amazing,whatever shock value you intended wears off pretty quickly and certainly if you hold to that 'every valid point is the center of the universe' view then be my guest,I want no association with a human being who thinks that way no more than I would a creationist.
> And "to > remain in keeping with gravity" is of course the name of the game. If > the Moon comes along (with momentum), that 'gravitational equilibrium' > is going to change over time, and the common centre with it, so a > system with a changing "collapsing back" picture is going to reflect > that stabilisation. How much drift would we be needing to detect in > 'up to half a metre a day' divided by 365, to give us something of the > order of 1cm a year, which might reflect that stabilisation. To my way > of thinking it's not so much a question of support to accommodate > isostatic fall-back, it's a question of wholesale "pull it all this > way". There's one for the numberologists: which responds the most to > pull? ...the brittle skin, the ductile mantle, or the fluid/ ductile > core?
The issue here is that the net vector for gravity at the earth's surface is down/inward - and that is therefore the direction in which things settle making expansion impossible without a substantial input of matter and/or energy from an external source....
[SNIP]
> I'm really surprised people keep asking this question. Even as the > current plate tectonic Paradigm goes, it's all "depressurisation" to > give partial melting at ridges (no more the magmas from the bowels of > the earth).
[SNIP]
Depressurisation can only occur as a result of ongoing energy input, so if we are proposing expansion due to depressurisation, we need to first identify the power source; and the winner is?
> > And "to > > remain in keeping with gravity" is of course the name of the game. If > > the Moon comes along (with momentum), that 'gravitational equilibrium' > > is going to change over time, and the common centre with it, so a > > system with a changing "collapsing back" picture is going to reflect > > that stabilisation. How much drift would we be needing to detect in > > 'up to half a metre a day' divided by 365, to give us something of the > > order of 1cm a year, which might reflect that stabilisation. To my way > > of thinking it's not so much a question of support to accommodate > > isostatic fall-back, it's a question of wholesale "pull it all this > > way". There's one for the numberologists: which responds the most to > > pull? ...the brittle skin, the ductile mantle, or the fluid/ ductile > > core?
> The issue here is that the net vector for gravity at the earth's surface is > down/inward - and that is therefore the direction in which things settle > making expansion impossible without a substantial input of matter and/or > energy from an external source....
Correct. Substantial input of energy. Since they were encouraged to knock Potasium decay on the head on account of insufficient half life, Pteros have had to resort to the BIG FUDGE: the "heat of original accretion". Such Cads, are they not? But what really might have been the cause? What about a more recent one, by that big one up in the sky every night, moving away from us...? Plate tectonics gets along with none, other than what it had in the first place, despite presumably it all being used up in the formation of a crust and differentiation. Evidently the crust breaking up after it all cooled down, and convection that doesn't muss differentiation isn't a problem for it.
But first you have to explain why (talking about subduction) this gravity doesn't operate the way of Stuart's rubber duck in the bath when he lets it go; why doesn't all the displaced stuff fall down from above as the duck rises - instead of waiting till the duck gets to the other side of the bath and gets cold, before pulling it all down:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/balloon.html> But don't encourage me, will you..
(Still nobody answering the question either - amongst all these numerancers - which shell would show the most effect of moonpull? Not asking for 27 decimal places, ..just gut feel will do) Evidently numberologists don't have a stomach for this question, because although gravity "can be regarded as operating at the Earth's centre", to really do it justice probably requires consideration of a whole lot more variables than they like to admit. Maybe they're all looking at each other, working out who's going to speak first. Let's hope.
> [SNIP]
> > I'm really surprised people keep asking this question. Even as the > > current plate tectonic Paradigm goes, it's all "depressurisation" to > > give partial melting at ridges (no more the magmas from the bowels of > > the earth). > [SNIP]
> Depressurisation can only occur as a result of ongoing energy input, so if > we are proposing expansion due to depressurisation, we need to first > identify the power source; and the winner is?
Subduction. Yaayyy!! The friction generated as these slabs go down (because it's cold in space), coupled with the heat at the ridges as the pressure is taken off, generates an entire ring of fire around the fundament of the whole plate tectonic schemozzle that lights up the Earth from Space at night, and sometimes blows parts of it sky-high.. And if there's not enough there then we can use some of that primeoeval heat from accretion, and a few verneshots. (That's the body-belt plate tectonics is wearing, that makes it easy to argue expansion on the same grounds (PTeros - hoist by their own stupidity.)
Oh you meant for Expansion? Oh,. ..right. Well, like I said in my last post, the Moon. Or you could ask Oriel. He's got a pretty good story to my mind, that might not need the Moon. But the Moon's there, so you might as well throw consideration of it into the mix. But the point is that the evidence for some input is there in the summed total of aggregate torsional effects of the Earth's deformation for the last nearly 300million years - and more besides (for anyone prepared to consider it). And of course the creation of the ocean floors, which that torsional effect describes.
So we are talking about Europa style of process, except where the mass proportions are reversed. In such a case, disproving the theory of expansion would be as simple as demonstrating a lack of correlation of earthly peak eruption times with local lunar cycles - and if there is such a correlation, we may just have to wonder how far the Europa effect can be stretched - these sort of stats would be worth acquiring...
On the other hand, any expansion by depressurisation, heating and net melting would have to come to a close either when the entire planetary mass has melted, or when there is sufficient surface area to radiate excess heat away.
The other question this begs is how constant is Europa's measured volume?
> > > And "to > > > remain in keeping with gravity" is of course the name of the game. If > > > the Moon comes along (with momentum), that 'gravitational equilibrium' > > > is going to change over time, and the common centre with it, so a > > > system with a changing "collapsing back" picture is going to reflect > > > that stabilisation. How much drift would we be needing to detect in > > > 'up to half a metre a day' divided by 365, to give us something of the > > > order of 1cm a year, which might reflect that stabilisation. To my way > > > of thinking it's not so much a question of support to accommodate > > > isostatic fall-back, it's a question of wholesale "pull it all this > > > way". There's one for the numberologists: which responds the most to > > > pull? ...the brittle skin, the ductile mantle, or the fluid/ ductile > > > core?
> > The issue here is that the net vector for gravity at the earth's surface is > > down/inward - and that is therefore the direction in which things settle > > making expansion impossible without a substantial input of matter and/or > > energy from an external source....
> Correct. Substantial input of energy. Since they were encouraged to > knock Potasium decay on the head on account of insufficient half life, > Pteros have had to resort to the BIG FUDGE: the "heat of original > accretion". Such Cads, are they not? But what really might have been > the cause? What about a more recent one, by that big one up in the > sky every night, moving away from us...? Plate tectonics gets along > with none, other than what it had in the first place, despite > presumably it all being used up in the formation of a crust and > differentiation. Evidently the crust breaking up after it all cooled > down, and convection that doesn't muss differentiation isn't a problem > for it.
> But first you have to explain why (talking about subduction) this > gravity doesn't operate the way of Stuart's rubber duck in the bath > when he lets it go; why doesn't all the displaced stuff fall down from > above as the duck rises - instead of waiting till the duck gets to the > other side of the bath and gets cold, before pulling it all down:- > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/balloon.html> But don't > encourage me, will you..
> (Still nobody answering the question either - amongst all these > numerancers - which shell would show the most effect of moonpull? Not > asking for 27 decimal places, ..just gut feel will do) Evidently > numberologists don't have a stomach for this question, because > although gravity "can be regarded as operating at the Earth's centre", > to really do it justice probably requires consideration of a whole lot > more variables than they like to admit. Maybe they're all looking at > each other, working out who's going to speak first. Let's hope.
> > [SNIP]
> > > I'm really surprised people keep asking this question. Even as the > > > current plate tectonic Paradigm goes, it's all "depressurisation" to > > > give partial melting at ridges (no more the magmas from the bowels of > > > the earth). > > [SNIP]
> > Depressurisation can only occur as a result of ongoing energy input, so if > > we are proposing expansion due to depressurisation, we need to first > > identify the power source; and the winner is?
> Subduction. Yaayyy!! The friction generated as these slabs go down > (because it's cold in space), coupled with the heat at the ridges as > the pressure is taken off, generates an entire ring of fire around the > fundament of the whole plate tectonic schemozzle that lights up the > Earth from Space at night, and sometimes blows parts of it sky-high.. > And if there's not enough there then we can use some of that > primeoeval heat from accretion, and a few verneshots. (That's the > body-belt plate tectonics is wearing, that makes it easy to argue > expansion on the same grounds (PTeros - hoist by their own stupidity.)
> Oh you meant for Expansion? Oh,. ..right. Well, like I said in my > last post, the Moon. Or you could ask Oriel. He's got a pretty good > story to my mind, that might not need the Moon. But the Moon's there, > so you might as well throw consideration of it into the mix. But the > point is that the evidence for some input is there in the summed total > of aggregate torsional effects of the Earth's deformation for the last > nearly 300million years - and more besides (for anyone prepared to > consider it). And of course the creation of the ocean floors, which > that torsional effect describes.
"Timothy Casey" <ReplaceOhWithZeroNumbersOnly11...@fieldcraft.biz> wrote in message <news:40e96567_1@news.iprimus.com.au>... > So we are talking about Europa style of process, except where the mass > proportions are reversed.
Are we? Oh, right... (?)
> In such a case,
Is this an 'if'?
> disproving the theory of expansion > would be as simple as demonstrating a lack of correlation of earthly peak > eruption times with local lunar cycles - and if there is such a correlation, > we may just have to wonder how far the Europa effect can be stretched - > these sort of stats would be worth acquiring...
> On the other hand, any expansion by depressurisation, heating and net > melting would have to come to a close either when the entire planetary mass > has melted, or when there is sufficient surface area to radiate excess heat > away.
> The other question this begs is how constant is Europa's measured volume?
Your logic escapes me here Tim. I know I do make a point about taking the larger scale into account, but I don't know if I'd go this far in the first instance. I'd need some other parameters to justify this leap. At first sight it's a bit of a mindbender (for me) trying to make the connection. Can you clarify? Perhaps we could use the Moon, since it's closer? To prove that expansion is not occurring I mean.
> > > > And "to > > > > remain in keeping with gravity" is of course the name of the game. If > > > > the Moon comes along (with momentum), that 'gravitational equilibrium' > > > > is going to change over time, and the common centre with it, so a > > > > system with a changing "collapsing back" picture is going to reflect > > > > that stabilisation. How much drift would we be needing to detect in > > > > 'up to half a metre a day' divided by 365, to give us something of the > > > > order of 1cm a year, which might reflect that stabilisation. To my way > > > > of thinking it's not so much a question of support to accommodate > > > > isostatic fall-back, it's a question of wholesale "pull it all this > > > > way". There's one for the numberologists: which responds the most to > > > > pull? ...the brittle skin, the ductile mantle, or the fluid/ ductile > > > > core?
> > > The issue here is that the net vector for gravity at the earth's surface > is > > > down/inward - and that is therefore the direction in which things settle > > > making expansion impossible without a substantial input of matter and/or > > > energy from an external source....
> > Correct. Substantial input of energy. Since they were encouraged to > > knock Potasium decay on the head on account of insufficient half life, > > Pteros have had to resort to the BIG FUDGE: the "heat of original > > accretion". Such Cads, are they not? But what really might have been > > the cause? What about a more recent one, by that big one up in the > > sky every night, moving away from us...? Plate tectonics gets along > > with none, other than what it had in the first place, despite > > presumably it all being used up in the formation of a crust and > > differentiation. Evidently the crust breaking up after it all cooled > > down, and convection that doesn't muss differentiation isn't a problem > > for it.
> > But first you have to explain why (talking about subduction) this > > gravity doesn't operate the way of Stuart's rubber duck in the bath > > when he lets it go; why doesn't all the displaced stuff fall down from > > above as the duck rises - instead of waiting till the duck gets to the > > other side of the bath and gets cold, before pulling it all down:- > > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/balloon.html> But don't > > encourage me, will you..
> > (Still nobody answering the question either - amongst all these > > numerancers - which shell would show the most effect of moonpull? Not > > asking for 27 decimal places, ..just gut feel will do) Evidently > > numberologists don't have a stomach for this question, because > > although gravity "can be regarded as operating at the Earth's centre", > > to really do it justice probably requires consideration of a whole lot > > more variables than they like to admit. Maybe they're all looking at > > each other, working out who's going to speak first. Let's hope.
> > > [SNIP]
> > > > I'm really surprised people keep asking this question. Even as the > > > > current plate tectonic Paradigm goes, it's all "depressurisation" to > > > > give partial melting at ridges (no more the magmas from the bowels of > > > > the earth). > > > [SNIP]
> > > Depressurisation can only occur as a result of ongoing energy input, so > if > > > we are proposing expansion due to depressurisation, we need to first > > > identify the power source; and the winner is?
> > Subduction. Yaayyy!! The friction generated as these slabs go down > > (because it's cold in space), coupled with the heat at the ridges as > > the pressure is taken off, generates an entire ring of fire around the > > fundament of the whole plate tectonic schemozzle that lights up the > > Earth from Space at night, and sometimes blows parts of it sky-high.. > > And if there's not enough there then we can use some of that > > primeoeval heat from accretion, and a few verneshots. (That's the > > body-belt plate tectonics is wearing, that makes it easy to argue > > expansion on the same grounds (PTeros - hoist by their own stupidity.)
> > Oh you meant for Expansion? Oh,. ..right. Well, like I said in my > > last post, the Moon. Or you could ask Oriel. He's got a pretty good > > story to my mind, that might not need the Moon. But the Moon's there, > > so you might as well throw consideration of it into the mix. But the > > point is that the evidence for some input is there in the summed total > > of aggregate torsional effects of the Earth's deformation for the last > > nearly 300million years - and more besides (for anyone prepared to > > consider it). And of course the creation of the ocean floors, which > > that torsional effect describes.
> > So we are talking about Europa style of process, except where the mass > > proportions are reversed.
> Are we? Oh, right... (?)
> > In such a case,
> Is this an 'if'?
> > disproving the theory of expansion > > would be as simple as demonstrating a lack of correlation of earthly peak > > eruption times with local lunar cycles - and if there is such a correlation, > > we may just have to wonder how far the Europa effect can be stretched - > > these sort of stats would be worth acquiring...
> > On the other hand, any expansion by depressurisation, heating and net > > melting would have to come to a close either when the entire planetary mass > > has melted, or when there is sufficient surface area to radiate excess heat > > away.
> > The other question this begs is how constant is Europa's measured volume?
> Your logic escapes me here Tim. I know I do make a point about taking > the larger scale into account, but I don't know if I'd go this far in > the first instance. I'd need some other parameters to justify this > leap. At first sight it's a bit of a mindbender (for me) trying to > make the connection. Can you clarify? Perhaps we could use the Moon, > since it's closer? To prove that expansion is not occurring I mean.
Europa regularly gets bent out of shape as it orbits through Jupiter's gravity field. The resulting geysers penetrating the upper layer of ice in time with its orbital cycle could be considered an example of gravitational effects on volcanic/tectonic cyclicity. If the earth's moon was capable of influencing terrestrial vulcanism to the point where intensity of the bulk of volcanic activity can be correlated with local tides, then perhaps there is sufficient gravitational force exerted on the earth by the moon to influence mantle temperatures. If not, I don't see how lunar gravitational effects could contribute the energy to produce enough heat to cause ongoing expansion...
If we take Europa/Jupiter as massively exaggerated analogy of the earth/moon situation, it is not true that we should observe a high and clearly measurable rate of expansion of Europa if the earth is expanding as a result of lunar gravity?
However, it still remains a disclaimer that expansion by depressurisation, heating and net melting; would have to come to a close either when the entire planetary mass has melted, or when there is sufficient surface area to radiate enough excess heat away that melting need not continue.
"Timothy Casey" <ReplaceOhWithZeroNumbersOnly11...@fieldcraft.biz> wrote in message <news:40ea5f74_1@news.iprimus.com.au>... > If the earth's moon was capable of > influencing terrestrial vulcanism to the point where intensity of the bulk > of volcanic activity can be correlated with local tides, then perhaps there > is sufficient gravitational force exerted on the earth by the moon to > influence mantle temperatures. If not, I don't see how lunar gravitational > effects could contribute the energy to produce enough heat to cause ongoing > expansion...
Not really talking about gravitational effects (although they're there) so much as the transfer of kinetic energy (capture) (an unknown quantity)
> If we take Europa/Jupiter as massively exaggerated analogy of the earth/moon > situation, it is not true that we should observe a high and clearly > measurable rate of expansion of Europa if the earth is expanding as a result > of lunar gravity?
> However, it still remains a disclaimer that expansion by depressurisation, > heating and net melting; would have to come to a close either when the > entire planetary mass has melted, or when there is sufficient surface area > to radiate enough excess heat away that melting need not continue.
depends what you attribute the melting to... the heat of planetary accretion? or the subsequent 'capture of the Moon' I assuming (for the sake of the argument) that capture was later than melting and early differentiation; it's kind of in 'melt-down' again.
|
