On Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:07:35 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 11:30:45 -0800, "oriel36"
wrote:

Centrifugal forces,yeah,yeah yeah,this has been the story for hundreds
of years and it will tell you why the Earth and all rotating celestial
objects are spheres but it is useless to explain deviations from a
perfect sphere.

Centrifugal forces do not explain why the planets are spheres (rotating
or not). They are spherical because of gravity. Centrifugal force
explains why rotating spheres are oblate.


Perhaps you are the one who is special for it takes quite an effort to
miss the shape of the Earth as a geological feature.Unless you live in
a cave you would know that the Earth's fractured crust is composed of
plates that are subject to rotational forces in the plastic-molten
mantle.As all rotating celestial objects display both differential
rotation and a bulge,it takes quite a special person to ignore it.

Rotating celestial objects that are solid, e.g. the Moon or Mars, do not
display differential rotation, just equatorial bulges.

Almost certainly, there is some differential rotation in the plastic
interior of the Earth (I don't know that anyone is denying this, as you
seem to suggest). The point is that convection currents in the mantle-
which have been observed experimentally- explain very nicely the
movement and evolution of tectonic plates. If that motion resulted from
differential rotation as you suggest, you would expect fault lines and
plate boundaries to lie preferentially on east-west axes, which they do
not. You would also expect plates on opposite sides of the equator to be
rotating, and in opposite directions. But the directions that plates
rotate isn't correlated with their hemisphere.

It is not my fault that everyone is intent in shooting themselves in
the foot with the 'scientific method' when simple intution will
do.

Terrible problem there, what with rational methodology corrupting
intuition. g

I think my own intuition is pretty good; it has generally served me
well. But boy, on occasion it has really led me down the wrong path!
(And I doubt there is a scientist alive who wouldn't say the same.) If I
trusted only my intuition, and valued it higher than empirical evidence,
I'd sure have a strange world view by now. Hmmm... sound like anyone you
know?

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Just a quick reminder that in 2005 when the uneven rotational gradient between Equatorial and Polar latitudes was being presented for the first time linking the spherical deviation of the planet with plate tectonics,there was no discussion among 'mainstream' empiricists ,including you, on a rotational mechanism. You have the usual empirical characteristic of not only failing to grasp the relevance but when it is being demonstrated the empiricists go into an assertion binge as what happened with rotation and plate tectonics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...oldid=29688503

The idea of a transition phase in stellar evolution is a lot slower coming but there is a possibility that when you look out at our parent star you may be looking at the factory for the elements in your body and all other visible things with the transition event being a supernova.

The thing about empiricists is that they botch clear reasoning even if that reasoning is in outlines and only speculative in nature. I am not happy to see them lunge at rotation and plate tectonics without taking into account a normal observation in watching the behavior of rotating viscous compositions so although you are keen to speculate on these exoplanets,when our close by planetary neighbors offer up real information you suddenly don't know what I am saying to this forum.