|
|
sci.geo.geology |
> >> [snip of text irrelevant to Oriel's new point] > >> >Don > >> >I have to say that the manner of your expression is delightful and I > >> >You have every reason to take the Earth's rotation as a factor in > >> >The planet Venus is more or less the same size as the Earth but > >> Wow. You hold it to be the direction of Venus's rotation that is > >It would be highly unusual if it was'nt and unfortunately you have > Oriel, is English not your native language? This isn't a sentence. > Regardless of native language, if you're going to argue science, > >You appear content to keep axial rotation constant to stellar > Again, you're missing proper sentence division. > >Perhaps you are better > A sentence at last. Alas, it occurs merely for personal attack. > >> Ok. _Why_ is the direction the important factor and _not_ > >I have already indicated to geologists why physicists and astronomers > With a loose notion of sentence, that is one. Unfortunately, > >It is your priviledge to believe that no association > Again you fail to break sentences properly. > You've actually given no reason for geologists (of which I could be http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/05/6/6 That's useless to everyone else. Opoosition to the association between planetary motion and physical Let me spare you the obvious expected response,I am working off the > Again, you don't write a sentence. It's also untrue. But that " If it were crustal motions, one might also expect differences But neither is observed. Everybody sees the same time between Note, too, that all the preceding is equally true if you prefer http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=g:thl995680621d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=... That a geologist would find room to discuss matters of the rotation b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote in message <news:10eds4fk9bl8cc8@corp.supernews.com>... That's the style,reason like a man instead of a nuisance and you might
> 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:
> >> >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.
> >> >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.
> >> >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.
> >> the striking point, as you point to rotation being important in
> >> crustal structure.
> >zero chance of discussing it and especially the differential between
> >constant axial rotation and variable orbital motion.
> 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.)
> it's a good idea to do it in a language you have command of.
> the following parts
> >circumpolar motion and the 23 hour 56 min 04 sec equivalency therefore
> >I simply would have nothing to discuss with you.
> >off in talk.origins or some other simpleminded groups.
> >> the fact that Venus's period of rotation is 243 (earth) days
> >> long?
> >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 does nothing whatever to answer the question.
> >exists but I suspect that geologists would begin to think otherwise.
> 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.
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 I will credit where it is due,a month ago I would have accepted the
> reasons why only one of the three differences matters. You'll also
> have to supply the reasons why it is that one.
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.
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'.
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 You wrote that the universe rotating around the Earth is valid,if you
> >a ball.
> hardly matters to you. Right?
are so keen to correct my descriptive shortcomings (which I admit to)
I accept that your statement is clear of any ambiguity.
in the motion of fixed stars as observed by people on different
parts of the crust.
crossings of the fixed stars.
to consider the rest of the universe to be moving around the earth."
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.