In article <5f164087.0406231829.1b62...@posting.google.com>,
don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: >OK. Let's try to keep this page KLEEN. No banter. No sledging. Just >Questions. Just answers. Fire away:-
Can't speak about 'frequently', but some questions:
What is the rate of expansion? Why isn't is observed by, e.g., GPS networks and VLBI? How has it varied over the past 4.5 Gy? -- Why? If it has not varied over the past 4.5 Gy, why? If you object to the age of the earth being pegged at 4.5 Gy, why?
What process causes the expansion? What supplies the extra mass? If no extra mass, why is the old mass expanding?
What effect does the expansion you posit have on: a) earth's moment of inertia? b) earth's angular momentum? c) earth's surface gravity d) earth's tidal couple from the moon? e) moon's orbit (including the, currently, 8.8 and 18.6 year periods) -- each through the earth's history
-- 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
If Earth is expanding from within that means material is being added from below and layers are being pushed up to the surface and then eroded. Then why do we find testerial fossils below the surface?
> If Earth is expanding from within that means material is being added > from below and layers are being pushed up to the surface and then > eroded. Then why do we find testerial fossils below the surface?
> Andy
If the earth is expanding, why are all the caves underground? Being as they weigh nothing--(i.e., atmospheric pressure in a cave is pretty close to atmospheric pressure out of a cave) they ought to pop right up, and not be revealed only when erosion has reduced water table and surface to reveal entrances.
If the earth is expanding, how come the global village is shrinking?
If the earth is expanding, we have no need for war. More territory should be being created to accomodate living space, more natural resources etc. So why fight over something as trivial as hydrocarbons? More is being created!!
OTOH, scientists agree that the Sun is expanding, and when it reaches the orbit of Venus about 5 GA from now, there will be a hot time in the old town, tonight!
It is all relative. We (earth and its inhabitants) are keeping up with a expanding universe. Although most can't feel the expansion some certainly can see its effects on our bodies. Hell, my waist grew an inch in just a few years. When I step on a scale I can see the increase in mass as well. Oh well :} Will E.
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> If Earth is expanding from within that means material is being added > from below and layers are being pushed up to the surface and then > eroded. Then why do we find testerial fossils below the surface?
> Andy
Answer: (Read the reply to 'Anonymous' first, under same-day 'don findlay' posting). Once the mantle opens, deformation (stretching) is taken up in the mantle. Deformationally speaking, the crust effectively 'dies'. Apart from around the fringes all it does today is skate about (where it can) on the mantle, and get eroded. BUT PRIOR TO SEVERANCE the crust was stretching all over the place, uplifting here and subsiding there, ..it was an entirely different picture, with incursions and regressions mapping out the patterns of uplift and stretching adjustment. I don't think the planet will see the likes of it again. The planet is resurfacing as it stabilises and dies(?). The crust already is (dying) compared to its previous behaviour - getting eroded to compensate for the way it's getting pushed/ pulled apart and uplifted. Look on the grace image at the way the the Himalyas lifted up (and all the water ran off). It's a piddling uplift, globally speaking. The water used to cap them, depositing the sediments (and whatever fossils are in them) that make them up. Stretching and uplift, ..uplift and stretching, were the dynamics prior to severance, with transgressions and regressions, and the shifting pattern of sedimentation consequent on the pattern of uplift. It was the expansion, and the stretching consequent on it, that caused the patterns of uplift and erosion that built up sedimentary sequence (and the fossils in them).
Expansion > localised variable uplift anomalies > regressions/ transgressions > erosion/ sedimentation/ fossils ; more expansion >> more variable uplift >> more regressions/ transgressions >> more sediments/ more fossils; more expansion >>> more uplift etc etc.
When you think about it, the build-up of global stratigraphic sequence on a continental crust is itself first-order testimony to expansion (...and when you think about it, not easy to explain in plate tectonics) (impossible to explain). (Somebody have a go.... ).
Good question. Highlights the creation of water as well as mantle.
b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote in message <news:10dli1eqr3u6v5a@corp.supernews.com>... > In article <5f164087.0406231829.1b62...@posting.google.com>, > don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > >OK. Let's try to keep this page KLEEN. No banter. No sledging. Just > >Questions. Just answers. Fire away:-
> Can't speak about 'frequently', but some questions:
> What is the rate of expansion? > Why isn't is observed by, e.g., GPS networks and VLBI? > How has it varied over the past 4.5 Gy? > -- Why? > If it has not varied over the past 4.5 Gy, why? > If you object to the age of the earth being pegged at 4.5 Gy, why?
> What process causes the expansion? > What supplies the extra mass? > If no extra mass, why is the old mass expanding?
> What effect does the expansion you posit have on: > a) earth's moment of inertia? > b) earth's angular momentum? > c) earth's surface gravity > d) earth's tidal couple from the moon? > e) moon's orbit (including the, currently, 8.8 and 18.6 year periods) > -- each through the earth's history
All of these questions bear on the mathematics of the problem. Looking at the geology, I can only try to put up the "let this be that and that be this" headers, and leave it to you numberologists/ numberancers to work it out.
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. I think the ridge-slope reflects the rate of mantle adjustment to creep/ ductile flow (the "ridge-push" factor of plate tectonics). But if you take them superficially, time slices balanced against width indicates they either stay the same size or get wider as they get younger, both of which indicates increase in spreading with forwards time.
Why isn't it observed? I think this question is invalid. And anyway, I don't know that it isn't (observed). (I'm hearing stories that they zero it because it's embarassing and bears on the politics of plate tectonics). But what are we talking about here? ...a ten/ twenty year window? In a process embracing some hundreds of millions? 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? 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.
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).
Torsion involves a center, a rotation and a body in some distance. What is the body (the crust?) and what should be the consequence of the influence?
Answer:-
The 'architecture' (distribution/ aggregate orientation/ structure/ movement picture) of the Ocean floors as shown by the transform - ridge relationship, and the overriding of the Pacific by the Americas (i.e., pivoting open of the Atlantic about the north pole) indicates torsion operates on the Whole Earth crust. I think Moon capture is implicated, the consequence of which is 1. a shift in the barycentre, and 2. disturbance in rotational equilibrium. Exactly how this gravitational/ rotational energy is taken up/ transfered, I don't know, but the integrated geological retrofits of spreading have resulted in the Earth getting bigger (slow 'explosion'). Manufacture of a lot of water over time is also implicated. (I think the banded iron formations are implicated too - unique to that period of the big impacts). Adjustment of the core pushes the mantle sideways / outwards? A kind of resonant 'beat' of gravitational pull building up (Moonpull)? Build up of partial melts bursting out like a boil? I don't know. But the consequence of something like Moon capture should have a profound effect on the deformational readjustment on whatever equilibrium system would have existed prior to Moon capture. I know there's the theory that the Earth was impacted by some 'mars-sized' object, and the moon coagulated from the detritus, but on that one I don't see why the detritus of impact shouldn't simply have just fallen back to Earth, rather than forming a separate (smaller). I think Moon 'capture', at some point, is more credible. And I think the deformation we see is most likely the result of that. Though I must say there are aspects that favour some sort of collision, if we can accept the response to have been slow. Because the results *are* slow makes me favour capture.
I don't believe convection is the reason for the Earth's deformation:- (Singing it again):- "WHATSOEVER GRAVITY HAS PUT TOGETHER, LET NO THERMAL CONSEQUENCE SE ASUNDER". That's not to deny that mantle rise is occurring - it's the essence of expansion after all - just that it is not *driving* anything. (the 'wake' pushes the boat?). (How would you tell?) It seriously contradicts the laws of thermodynamics (I would have thought) to say that the cause of Earth deformation is to be found in the closed system of its formation. There has to be an input from either something we can easily understand, like being clobbered by some large piece of astronomical apparatus (like a meteorite of a sort - which we see in our museums, and fpw which there is evidence on the Moon for really, really big ones), or from something we cannot - like the creation of mass from scratch. Either way we look at it there are problems, but I go for the Moon as being the most reasonable explanation, fitting in with what we know except for the actual mechanics of expansion at the mineral (phase-change) scale. The large-scale empirical evidence to my mind is not in question, only the means. But (as I keep saying) plate tectonics has its own problem as regards 'means' (as per the song above). The fall-back position for plate tectonics and convection causing deformation is the original heat of planetisimal impacts, but that won't do because there has been the formation of a crust in between times. If deformation was due to that, then a granitoid crust would never have formed (and the planet wouldn't have differenctiated either). That's the way I see it.
So, the consequence? The Earth is getting bigger, and the whole crust is migrating westwards over itself (Americas) (rotational adjustment). The cause? Possibly Moon capture. The torsional architecture of the crust describes (ste-by-step) how it all happened. ("Earth expansion and Torsional tectonics" = the 'plate tectonics' of the new millenium) (interesting stuff, to my way of thinking).
I think very likely Mars may be implicated. ( Moon capture needn't have happened right here). (And possibly the Asteroid Belt)
In article <5f164087.0406242147.1ba41...@posting.google.com>,
don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: >b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote in message ><news:10dli1eqr3u6v5a@corp.supernews.com>... >> In article <5f164087.0406231829.1b62...@posting.google.com>, >> don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: >> >OK. Let's try to keep this page KLEEN. No banter. No sledging. Just >> >Questions. Just answers. Fire away:-
>> Can't speak about 'frequently', but some questions:
>> What is the rate of expansion? >> Why isn't is observed by, e.g., GPS networks and VLBI? >> How has it varied over the past 4.5 Gy? >> -- Why? >> If it has not varied over the past 4.5 Gy, why? >> If you object to the age of the earth being pegged at 4.5 Gy, why?
>> What process causes the expansion? >> What supplies the extra mass? >> If no extra mass, why is the old mass expanding?
>> What effect does the expansion you posit have on: >> a) earth's moment of inertia? >> b) earth's angular momentum? >> c) earth's surface gravity >> d) earth's tidal couple from the moon? >> e) moon's orbit (including the, currently, 8.8 and 18.6 year periods) >> -- each through the earth's history
>All of these questions bear on the mathematics of the problem. Looking >at the geology, I can only try to put up the "let this be that and >that be this" headers, and leave it to you numberologists/ >numberancers to work it out.
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.
>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?
>Why isn't it observed? I think this question is invalid.
Whether a claimed effect is observed is _always_ valid. The questioner might be wrong about whether it is observed, but then you just correct the error by pointing to the observations of your effect happening.
>And >anyway, I don't know that it isn't (observed). (I'm hearing stories >that they zero it because it's embarassing and bears on the politics >of plate tectonics). But what are we talking about here? ...a ten/ >twenty year window? In a process embracing some hundreds of millions?
Is your earth expansion something that only happens when people aren't observing it? 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?
VLBI goes back over 40 years, by the way.
> 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.
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.
>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. 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.
Why should any scientist be interested in a theory when it is not quantitatively observable and has no quantitatively observable consequences, even according to its originator?
-- 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
> > OK. Let's try to keep this page KLEEN. No banter. No sledging. Just > > Questions. Just answers. Fire away:-
> FAQ 1. (by email; posted anonymously)
anonymously = Carsten (hit the wrong send button)
> Torsion involves a center, a rotation and a body in some distance. > What is > the body (the crust?) and what should be the consequence of the > influence?
> Answer:-
> The 'architecture' (distribution/ aggregate orientation/ structure/ > movement picture) of the Ocean floors as shown by the transform - > ridge relationship, and the overriding of the Pacific by the Americas > (i.e., pivoting open of the Atlantic about the north pole) indicates > torsion operates on the Whole Earth crust.
You keep saying that, and I keep asking for the exact mechanics of it. Drawing a decorative spiral on the globe hardly implements details of how the impact of torsion expresses itself in the crustal structure.
> I think Moon capture is > implicated,
Until recently I thought that such a capture was possible. Conservation of momentum rather suggests that it is not possible. And isn't it a far fetched relation to the implication of torsion?
> the consequence of which is 1. a shift in the barycentre, > and 2. disturbance in rotational equilibrium. Exactly how this > gravitational/ rotational energy is taken up/ transfered, I don't > know,
So offering it as an explation is unreasonable.
> but the integrated geological retrofits of spreading have > resulted in the Earth getting bigger (slow 'explosion').
So you say, but it has no context to your line of reasoning.
> If Earth is expanding from within that means material is being added > from below and layers are being pushed up to the surface and then > eroded. Then why do we find testerial fossils below the surface?
New rocks are created when a volcano erupts above the surface. These zero-age rocks cover the rocks from previous eruptions thereby forming a stratigraphic column. The stratigraphy of the ocean floor is lateral with zero-age rocks being created at the midocean ridges and progressing in age toward the shore. http://www-odp.tamu.edu/public/pressrel_html/leg109b.html John Curtis
> anonymously = Carsten (hit the wrong send button)
> > Torsion involves a center, a rotation and a body in some distance. > > What is > > the body (the crust?) and what should be the consequence of the > > influence?
> > Answer:-
> > The 'architecture' (distribution/ aggregate orientation/ structure/ > > movement picture) of the Ocean floors as shown by the transform - > > ridge relationship, and the overriding of the Pacific by the Americas > > (i.e., pivoting open of the Atlantic about the north pole) indicates > > torsion operates on the Whole Earth crust.
> You keep saying that, and I keep asking for the exact mechanics of it. > Drawing a decorative spiral on the globe hardly implements details of how > the impact of torsion expresses itself in the crustal structure.
Are you saying tha tthe "line on the map" doesn't describe a global helical spiral? And that if it did, that it wouldn't mean anything anyway as regards rotation?
I've still got a few pages to put up on the detail. I need to do them as .mpegs or something, but then the files are huge, and I have to work out how best to do it (and when I have time). But by way of 'preparation', if you come at it from the perspective of plate tectonics and get an idea around the notion that plates are actually not moving at all, but fixed and the material sort of travels *through* them, then you get a better idea of 'growth'. Then once you have that idea, forget it, and try similar on with brittle -ductile behaviour, and the ocean floors as material-filled growth cracks. The cracks (ridges *and* transforms) keep penetrating, and getting bigger at the same time, and sloughing off the ridge, like collapsing overthrusts if it were layering - but they're not layering; they're cracks, and they're not sloughing off at all because they don't have to, because the ocean floors grow *towards* the ridge, not away from the ridge, and they're growing upwards, not collapsing off but they sort of are (see what I mean?) ("moving through").
'growth towards the ridge' - critical point. Not negotiable.
> > I think Moon capture is > > implicated,
> Until recently I thought that such a capture was possible. Conservation of > momentum rather suggests that it is not possible. And isn't it a far fetched > relation to the implication of torsion?
Well, ,,the entire symmetry of the whole picture seems to relate to the ambitus of the Earth, and the ecliptic. In the sixties the idea of Moon capture apparently was popular. There was the view (calculations) that if the Moon came from the wrong direction (i.e. a 'head on' near-miss; retrograde(?) There would be enough kinetic energy transfered to vapourise the Earth (or the whole lot, I forget). If it came more gently the other way, from 'behind' (prograde?) then you could finagle things to get just the right amount of heat you need to do all sorts. Even start a mantle convecting (Why, you wouldn't even need radioactivity!). I don't exactly know why it lost favour - perhpas because the notion of an impactor was more 'sexy' at a time when there was interest in looking at the big craters on the Moon. If you try to get into this you just meet "consensus is.." " Everyone agrees..."
> > the consequence of which is 1. a shift in the barycentre, > > and 2. disturbance in rotational equilibrium. Exactly how this > > gravitational/ rotational energy is taken up/ transfered, I don't > > know,
> So offering it as an explanation is unreasonable.
I'm just saying that *I* don't know how the transfer might be relatively apportioned to the core mantle and the crust. All we can see is its effect in the crust, and I think there is no doubt about the geological evidence for the shift in the Barycentre <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/christmas.html> I think that is just another way of phrasing what we can see as the result of "Torsion-in-expansion". (This is the sort of thing that a few numbers could be put around and see if it's logical over a time ... certainly phanerozoic, Proterozoic as well? ) Might a shift in the Barycentre do anything at all? (Go for it, Slide Rule). If not, then (provided the arithmetic is reasonable) we might have to look for another root cause. But something is configuring the deformation the way it is, and it isn't plate tectonics, because plate tectonics doesn't recognise global torsion (although it does recognise Euler poles) : funny that. (.. Louts with hand-lenses, bent on molestation, abuse, and upsetting poor little stones...) (OooOPs - slap slap! Keep it clean, ..keep it Kleen!!)
> > but the integrated geological retrofits of spreading have > > resulted in the Earth getting bigger (slow 'explosion').
> So you say, but it has no context to your line of reasoning.
Well, I think it does. The consideration is not just 'Expansion", it is 'torsion-in-expansion' (Expansion-in-torsion). The two are linked correlatives. We can't describe one without taking into account the other. The line of reasoning (REASONING) begins with the dualities of 1. empirical observation: global torsion of transforms/ ocean floor growth. 2a. conceptual reasoning:- Panthalassa is not logically admissible (for a variety of reasons). 2b. Overriding just as admissible as subduction; overriding preferred on account of 2a.
b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote in message <news:10do2h85h78n916@corp.supernews.com>... > 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 has no quantitatively observable > consequences, even according to its originator?
Gee whizz! That's five times you've said "quantitative" in about as many lines. You mean 'qualitative' counts for nothing? (You cook with scales, right?) ...Hey by the way, ...after you went up to the roof, did you go down to the basement and check out if that was flat too? ((OK- "keeping it clean" - couldn't resist)) ((flat mountains, horizontal mountains, level mountains, ...it
...
> > If Earth is expanding from within that means material is being added > > from below and layers are being pushed up to the surface and then > > eroded. Then why do we find testerial fossils below the surface?
> New rocks are created when a volcano erupts above the surface. > These zero-age rocks cover the rocks from previous eruptions > thereby forming a stratigraphic column. > The stratigraphy of the ocean floor is lateral with zero-age > rocks being created at the midocean ridges and progressing in > age toward the shore. > http://www-odp.tamu.edu/public/pressrel_html/leg109b.html > John Curtis
Ah, yes, but all of these fossils are Doomed, DOOMED, I say ...resigned to destruction in Hades. NO more will we see the fair face of fossils in the geological record. Not for them the garlanded wayside roadcut, the drone of honeyed bees, golden cowslips and the happy banter of summer sophomores in love. In fact there's a whole Panthalassa of the fuckers gone down the gurgler already, thanks to the appearance in the geological record of Pteros. So I dare say unto thee: repent all ye would be preserved. Jump on the beach, climb a tree, get under a rock like Mt Everest if you crave resurrection. (Jesus! ... And this is why the Power Utility wants to chuck its nuclear waste down a subduction zone - Where did he graduate from? Who hired Him? - Though God knows why he thinks nuclear waste will go down, when sediments don't but the water (and oh yes, the Be10) in them does. (I wonder who will get the job of cleaning up the mess - Hmm, see David, see if he's got a few radio-inactive mermaids in his bio-collection...)
In other words, Plate tectonics today has put a stop to marine fossils appearing ever again in the geological record. So how come they ever occurred in the geological record in the first place?) (We might need to coax Stuart out of retirement to answer this one. He prides himself on having written about all of that subduction stuff. .... Continents of flat-lying sediments, ..choc-a-bleedin'-bloc, ..absolutely chokkers, ... wiv fozzils. Lammelis an' cephs, an' graptos and trilos, an, an', ... Living proof! Wot abaht it, Stu? Guide us, oh though Great Jehovah. (Och yes I know, I did, didn't I, ...but for the big Heid yin, the kicker of one-legged butts, I can't resist.)
(Staking a claim...) Claiming a stake ...and driving it through the dead heart of plate tectonix.
> > anonymously = Carsten (hit the wrong send button)
> > > Torsion involves a center, a rotation and a body in some distance. > > > What is > > > the body (the crust?) and what should be the consequence of the > > > influence?
> > > Answer:-
> > > The 'architecture' (distribution/ aggregate orientation/ structure/ > > > movement picture) of the Ocean floors as shown by the transform - > > > ridge relationship, and the overriding of the Pacific by the Americas > > > (i.e., pivoting open of the Atlantic about the north pole) indicates > > > torsion operates on the Whole Earth crust.
> > You keep saying that, and I keep asking for the exact mechanics of it. > > Drawing a decorative spiral on the globe hardly implements details of how > > the impact of torsion expresses itself in the crustal structure.
> Are you saying tha tthe "line on the map" doesn't describe a global > helical spiral? And that if it did, that it wouldn't mean anything > anyway as regards rotation?
"Timothy Casey" <ReplaceOhWithZeroNumbersOnly11...@fieldcraft.biz> wrote in message <news:40dcd5cd$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au>... > 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).
Ah well, you'll just need to wait till I draw it then - "The exact mechanics of torsional growth", in technicolour mpeg *and* avi. (Though I wouldn't have thought it so hard to envisage)
Transforms : ridge = torsion : growth.
(I take it you've already looked at the /torsion.html pages that are up?). Think of it like a hernia, bursting through, ...and twisting. Jesus Carsten, surely you can almost *feel* it!
> In article <5f164087.0406242147.1ba41...@posting.google.com>, > don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: >>b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote in message >><news:10dli1eqr3u6v5a@corp.supernews.com>... >>> In article <5f164087.0406231829.1b62...@posting.google.com>, >>> don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: >>> >OK. Let's try to keep this page KLEEN. No banter. No sledging. Just >>> >Questions. Just answers. Fire away:-
>>> Can't speak about 'frequently', but some questions:
>>> What is the rate of expansion? >>> Why isn't is observed by, e.g., GPS networks and VLBI? >>> How has it varied over the past 4.5 Gy? >>> -- Why? >>> If it has not varied over the past 4.5 Gy, why? >>> If you object to the age of the earth being pegged at 4.5 Gy, why?
>>> What process causes the expansion? >>> What supplies the extra mass? >>> If no extra mass, why is the old mass expanding?
>>> What effect does the expansion you posit have on: >>> a) earth's moment of inertia? >>> b) earth's angular momentum? >>> c) earth's surface gravity >>> d) earth's tidal couple from the moon? >>> e) moon's orbit (including the, currently, 8.8 and 18.6 year periods) >>> -- each through the earth's history
>>All of these questions bear on the mathematics of the problem. Looking >>at the geology, I can only try to put up the "let this be that and >>that be this" headers, and leave it to you numberologists/ >>numberancers to work it out.
> 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.
DF apparently failed math in College, and skipped physics altogether.
>>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?
>>Why isn't it observed? I think this question is invalid.
> Whether a claimed effect is observed is _always_ valid. The questioner > might be wrong about whether it is observed, but then you just correct > the error by pointing to the observations of your effect happening.
>>And >>anyway, I don't know that it isn't (observed). (I'm hearing stories >>that they zero it because it's embarassing and bears on the politics >>of plate tectonics). But what are we talking about here? ...a ten/ >>twenty year window? In a process embracing some hundreds of millions?
> Is your earth expansion something that only happens when people > aren't observing it? 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?
> VLBI goes back over 40 years, by the way.
>> 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.
> 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.
What do you expect from a scientific vegetable, such as DF?
>>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. > 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.
> Why should any scientist be interested in a theory when it is > not quantitatively observable and has no quantitatively observable > consequences, even according to its originator?
> -- > 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
> Let's stick to the simplest problem: Where is all the extra matter coming > from, to push material outward?
According to JPT, it comes from a 17.314567890123th dimension being who pops into our dimension periodically to give us all a bad day (he read about it on a Frank Zappa album cover, so it must be true)!
> Ah well, you'll just need to wait till I draw it then -
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?
" George" <geo...@george.net> wrote in message <news:ihhDc.959$pr2.170@bignews1.bellsouth.net>... > DF apparently failed math in College, and skipped physics altogether. > What do you expect from a scientific vegetable, such as DF?
Ah George, ...Nice to see you back y'ole fruit! Now keep this page clean, you old bozo ...and trim your fucking posts. Why don't *you* have a go at the arithmetic? Show this mob how it's done. (10, 9, 8, .... and 5's eleven)
> > Ah well, you'll just need to wait till I draw it then -
> 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. Well lithosphere (and possibly a fair bit deeper - core mantle boundary) I think it is that, that largely describes the mechanics of early 'skating' - though not so much the later one (American/ Pacific override). It's difficult trying to assign the scale of cause and effect.. There's a lot of 'skating' going on in the crust (the whole section on my site about Pangaean retrofit, and that major offset up the western Pacific, the detachment of Australia from India, etc.) If you begin with that finger exercise, <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/pacbirth.html> and think of the right hand as the Americas and the left hand as the Western Pacific/ Australia, and do the 'coriolis split/ rotation' as you open them up that will give the gist, but of course you have to 'flatten' it into the crust. The problem comes with what's leading and what's trailing at different stages in the evolution. The Atlantic didn't open till the Americas were fully spread and 'lagging'. But certainly the global torsion features very prominently. All the major structures defining things need to be properly identified though - or maybe not so much identified as 'reassigned'.
>> Ah well, you'll just need to wait till I draw it then -
> 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?
He skipped math in school, so he's not able to comply.
|
