On Jan 28, 10:30*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
I quite enjoyed reading about the magnification hobby and the
chestbeating financial contest between participants here but
personally I prefer Marty's or Barbara's homely observations of the
night sky and rely on images from Hubble,Keck or other large
telescopes to do my own research.

Beyond magnification,which is a valuable facet of astronomy,there is
work to be done such as a closer link between astronomy (specifically
the motions of the Earth)...

Speaking of motions of the earth...


That's right Sam,the rotation of the Earth has geological consequences
and they are fairly detailed provided men can wean themselves off
referencing the Earth's rotation to an astrological 'fixed stars'
framework and treat rotation as an independent motion that it actually
is .The rotating viscous composition beneath the fractured crust is
not exempt for the generalised rules governing all rotating celestial
objects and specifically the observed feature of differential
rotation,it is the relative speeds between bands that causes the Earth
to deviate from a perfect sphere and provides the mechanism for
crustal evolution and motion.

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/plt...ticRidgeSM.jpg

The dramatic 'S' band which stretches the globe and follows the
rotational orientation of the Earth indicates the presence of a
rotational mechanism but it is the symmetrical generation of crust off
the ridge that really calls attention to the same dynamic which causes
the day and night cycle.As you are so busy referencing a 'solid' Earth
against an equidistant celestial sphere bubble you are unlikely to
appreciate the enormous effect rotational dynamics actually has on the
planet,not just the huge 40Km spherical deviation but the ability to
sever continents as the dramatic curves between Europe/Africa and the
Americas show,even the anomaly at the Equator - the Romanche
trench,indicates the powerful rotational forces beneath your feet.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...che_Trench.jpg

This is one thing genuine dynamicists should actively pursue however
it is likely that the majority will carry their sullen 'definitional'
baggage with them (angular momentum,coriolis, ect, ect) and geology
will experience the same fate as astronomy.The price of tying rotation
directly to an astrological framework is that nobody can really
discuss rotational dynamics and its geological consequences ,the
present mechanism is a thermally driven 'convection cell' conclusion
which causes more problems than it solves and has no association with
either planetary shape or rotation.

People are naturally in tune with rotation and geology so you resort
to dwelling on the argument against tying rotation to an astrological
framework rather than denouncing the rotational geodynamics behind
crustal geodynamics proposal .