Internal viscosity,plate tectonics and the spherical Earth

With so many opinions circulating with no astronomical content and an
apparent distaste for all things basic and complex,here is another
topic that came up in a discussion recently.The person was still stuck
with an internal viscosity designed to suit a stationary Earth thermal
driven 'convection cells' whereas the viscosity which best suits the
26 mile spherical deviation of the planet is seen pouring out of every
volcano and crustal boundary at ocean depths -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VExZSpCujM8

The uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes
generates an uneven spherical shape which contemporaries consider
through a misnomer of 'equatorial bulge',the fact it that it is a
smooth global spherical deviation which so neatly in with the features
of the Mid Atlantic Ridge and a lag/advance mechanism that even the
normally slow empiricists have already adopted elements of my work
which emerged 6 years ago.

The joy of giving more than makes up for the dismal reception and
atmosphere into which the Earth's rotating interior makes an
appearance in evolutionary geology,I felt sorry for the person who
proposed a plastic mantle and who simply could not make the connection
between fluid dynamics,the overall rotation of the planet and its
effects on the surface crust in tandem with the large scale shape of
the planet

On Dec 22, 9:34*am, oriel36 wrote:

the fact it that it is a
smooth global spherical deviation which so neatly in with the features
of the Mid Atlantic Ridge and a lag/advance mechanism that even the
normally slow empiricists have already adopted elements of my work
which emerged 6 years ago.

I don't think for one microsecond that this is at all true. What
empirical evidence can you provide to show that this is accurate?

On Dec 22, 10:39*pm, palsing wrote:

I don't think for one microsecond that this is at all true. What
empirical evidence can you provide to show that this is accurate?

You know he'll only put a spin on anything he says.

Every rotating celestial object with an exposed viscous composition
displays differential rotation or what amounts to the same thing,an
uneven rotational gradient between equator and poles therefore to
exempt the Earth from this Universal feature in order to promote a
viscous composition designed to suit a stationary Earth,thermal driven
'convection cells' is quite a lapse.Even in in skeletal form in 2005
when nobody was considering the planet's rotation as a evolutionary
geological mechanism the issue is how to bind the spherical deviation
of the planet,something which is supposed to engage all
astronomers,with the more recent and sprawling discipline of
evolutionary geology.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...dc44406981e4c8


Not just the symmetrical generation of crust off the Mid Atlantic
Ridge but the orientation of crustal generation is probably second
only to the continental jigsaw puzzle separating the Americas from
Europe/Africa -

http://www.lostcity.washington.edu/g...s/atlantic.jpg

Not just the North/South divide running perpendicular to the rotating
viscous interior but the characteristic 'S' shape which divides at the
equator is just one of those lovely clues that link large scale
planetary features with short term events such as earthquakes as
signatures of a rotating Earth.Investigators threw the kitchen sink at
the Earth's rotation since 2005 as a mechanism for geological
evolution so there is no real question of priority as eventually
evolutionary geology is going to run into the spherical deviation of
the planet and that was the decisive difference between proposing
rotation and actually raising it to a level of the highest probability
for crustal evolution and motion.

I have changed my perspective on Wikipedia as its historical records
are invaluable for blunting the constant shifting of perspectives and
in 2005 there was no discussion on rotation as a mechanism whereas
today that has changed radically -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...oldid=15884491

I don't measure success by popularity,as far as I am concerned people
are welcome to that ephemeral stuff,renown is being among people of
the same level of understanding and who can move things forward by
providing connections which generate that great satisfaction known to
all lovers of nature,both terrestrial and celestial.

In studying the reaction to Wegener and why investigators were
reluctant to adopt the proposal,I came across a really relevant phrase
by JS Mill which applies to astronomical studies and especially the
issue of the resolution of retrogrades that a proposal "can be right
in what it affirmed and wrong in what it denied" ,the relevance being
that a hypothetical observer on the Sun cannot witness retrogrades
motions of the planets but as retrogrades are an illusion anyway seen
from the orbital motion of the Earth,the flawed perspective of Newton
does not match the accepted resolution known to all astronomers who
accepted the view of Copernicus.The technical non sequitur of Newton
exposes serious flaws in the approach empiricists took as a point of
departure for imposing their own views into the celestial arena -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

I have come to understand that many people employed in astronomy only
care that they are accepted in their community for not rocking the
boat,after all,that is what pays their wages and gives them their
reputation in the first place and they have no incentive to adapt and
adjust to better approaches and therein the real issue emerges when
adjusting to something as relevant as the dynamical inputs of the
planet into evolutionary geology and specifically reworking the
observed and known differential rotation in all rotating celestial
objects with viscous compositions to the Earth's rotating interior
beneath the fractured crust.Many of the elements which distinguish an
outworn concept with a new one in geological matters also apply to
astronomical issues and especially the large modification which
introduces an additional orbital component over and above it circuit
around the Sun -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=EEQd...page&q&f=false