Message from discussion
FAQS - Earth Expansion
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsga...@mail.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
References: <5f164087.0406231829.1b62cb4@posting.google.com> <5f164087.0406242148.587685cd@posting.google.com> <40dc0f06$0$275$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk> <5f164087.0406252214.4afd3d0f@posting.google.com> <40dd2462$0$261$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk> <5f164087.0406260726.2d8988e3@posting.google.com> <40dda8d1$0$188$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk> <5f164087.0406270434.bd7b750@posting.google.com> <40dfde0f$0$219$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk> <5f164087.0406280828.5bbc1b53@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: FAQS - Earth Expansion
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:47:25 +0200
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Lines: 146
Message-ID: <40e067be$0$215$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk>
Organization: TDC Totalloesninger
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.197.217.145
X-Trace: 1088448446 dread14.news.tele.dk 215 80.197.217.145:50094
X-Complaints-To: abuse@post.tele.dk
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5f164087.0406280828.5bbc1b53@posting.google.com...
> "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsga...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:<40dfde0f$0$219$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>...
> > "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:5f164087.0406270434.bd7b750@posting.google.com...
> >
> > snip
> >
> > > > 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.
|
