#1
|
|||
|
|||
A wikipedia detour
It should be accepted that all rotating celestial bodies with viscous
compositions display some form of differential rotation and indeed it is a matter of course for those who affirm it by observation whether it is the plasma seen in rotating stars,gas giants with the high probability that those planets with fluid compositions beneath a relatively thin crust have similar rotational traits.The Wikipedia article on plate tectonics looks like it was written by a student who wants recognition for doing his homework as it is less an article than it is a blizzard of citations however it is the mechanism for crustal motion and evolution that deserves the most attention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics Of course the Wiki gestapo throw around the assertion that differential rotation applied to the Earth is original research while at the same time exempting the rotating fluid interior of the Earth from generalized rules governing the rotation of viscous material as it disturbs the stationary Earth 'convection cells' ideology they have placed their hope in having speculated on a viscosity to suit that regrettable stab at the internal mechanism for crustal motion .The highest probability for productive investigation of crustal evolution/ motion has to be rotational dynamics based on the astronomical point of fact that no rotating celestial object with a viscous composition has been observed that exempts an uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes. No doubt the magnification guys will object to this meshing of astronomy with geology but this is astronomy regardless and the fact that the geologists are running around like headless chickens with a stationary Earth 'convection cells' and a very lethargic viscous composition organized around that unfortunate idea flies in the face of the viscosity that pours out of every fracture and volcanic eruption - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb0eB...eature=related It is highly likely that the planetary spherical deviation and crustal evolution/motion can be linked using a common rotational mechanism observed in all rotating viscous forms and the Earth fluid interior is no exception from differential rotation with a viscosity to suit. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A wikipedia detour
I was terribly bored and took the time to read the discussion.
It's a very simple issue and you seem dumb as a brick regarding it. If what you propose is NOT original research, then you will have references to verifiable sources that also discuss what you propose. The wikipedia moderators are simply enforcing the rules of the system that require all content to be referenced to verifiable sources. They've asked that you supply these references. It seems you are the one who's being obstinate and obtuse. I must be terribly bored again, since I took the time to reply to your drivel. Have a nice day!!!! Brian -- http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A wikipedia detour
On Oct 31, 5:14*am, Skywise wrote:
I was terribly bored and took the time to read the discussion. It's a very simple issue and you seem dumb as a brick regarding it. If what you propose is NOT original research, then you will have references to verifiable sources that also discuss what you propose. The wikipedia moderators are simply enforcing the rules of the system that require all content to be referenced to verifiable sources. They've asked that you supply these references. It seems you are the one who's being obstinate and obtuse. I must be terribly bored again, since I took the time to reply to your drivel. Have a nice day!!!! Brian --http://www.skywise711.com- Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html Quake "predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? I pulled the thread because it was badly written but it was not a complaint against that monster operation called Wikipedia,it is the astronomical observation that a rotating celestial body with a viscous composition displays differential rotation hence the highest probability for the mechanism linking the Earth's spherical deviation and plate tectonics is one that is already observed in exposed fluid celestial compositions in rotation.In order to exempt the Earth from differential rotation for the purpose of maintaining a stationary Earth mechanism that is thermal driven 'convection cells' means completely ignoring what astrographs are dictating,you may find this utterly boring and I have nothing to say about that however the proposal that there is a connection between the rotating fluid interior of the Earth with clues left on the surface crust is incredibly exciting in my eyes. Of course ,astronomers here are managing to ignore the elephant in the room in proposing an imaginative 'fact' which completely disassociates the day/night cycle from daily rotation by denying,even by being silent,that there are more than a full 365 rotations in a year and orbital circuit.I have no doubt that readers already see what went wrong hence the door is open for monster entities like Wikipedia where everyone is an authority.Before I brought up differential rotation 6 years ago there was not one sentence on a rotational mechanism while now there is a whole section but totally devoid of an uneven rotational gradient across equatorial and polar latitudes so this is how 'science' is done these days,a slow assimilation that concocts enough 'citations' to obscure a singular achievement,the difference being a genuine love of the planet and the forces that shape it rather than those who pursue terrestrial observation as a career to impress themselves and others who are of the same disposition. I see the viscosity of the Earth's interior pour out of every volcanic fountain or fissure as lava and can comprehend the energetic dynamics behind the great geological structures I see with my own eyes and the real time machine written in the rock and fossil records which are everywhere as I walk along the shore,drive through the canyons,in valleys and mountains even if it is perhaps difficult to imagine the timescales involved compared to our short timespan. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A wikipedia detour
On 31 Oct, 06:22, oriel36 wrote:
Remember Kelleher simulates stupidity to annoy, frustrate and generally wind-up people. http://www.martin-nicholson.info/tro...llkelleher.htm |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A wikipedia detour
"Skywise" wrote in message ... |I was terribly bored and took the time to read the discussion. | | It's a very simple issue and you seem dumb as a brick regarding | it. | | If what you propose is NOT original research, then you will have | references to verifiable sources that also discuss what you | propose. | | The wikipedia moderators are simply enforcing the rules of the | system that require all content to be referenced to verifiable | sources. They've asked that you supply these references. | | It seems you are the one who's being obstinate and obtuse. | | I must be terribly bored again, since I took the time to reply | to your drivel. | | Have a nice day!!!! | | Brian | -- | http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism | Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html | Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html | Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? Cardinal Bored Brian: This is what your predecessor, Cardinal Saint Bobby Bellarmine, wrote in support of the dual standards of wackypedia. http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v11n3p18.htm This is the dual standard I refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory "Problems with emission theory" - no references to verifiable sources. "confirms special relativity" -- Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity "Problems with Special_relativity" - conspicuous by its absence. Who is guarding you, Cardinal Bored and Boring Brian, total loser? You seem dumb as a brick regarding it. Have a miserable day. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A wikipedia detour
On Oct 31, 7:52*am, badastrobuster wrote:
On 31 Oct, 06:22, oriel36 wrote: Remember Kelleher simulates stupidity to annoy, frustrate and generally wind-up people. http://www.martin-nicholson.info/tro...llkelleher.htm The favorite argument of those who adhere to 'sidereal time' reasoning,and one seen in another thread on the stability of telescopic mounts is that a telescope will track a star in stellar circumpolar motion thereby concluding that this observation where a star circles the field of view represents daily rotation when,in fact,it represents geocentricity.This 'skywise' guy is brave as he leaves an open link to his website when most wouldn't dare do that nowadays least they get taken to pieces so let's see what Brian here has to say on this matter by setting up what you empiricists call a 'strawman argument' http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/Axis/axis.html If Brian here fixes his telescope on a star in the constellation Ursa Major and allows it to track that star,he then looks at his telescope and will notice that the telescope mount becomes the axis of rotation,homocentricity in other words.People who follow 'sidereal time' reasoning hardly notice that the inclination,or declination as it is called in your system,may change with latitude but the longitudinal motion is common to all and they actually knew about the problem of homocentricity long before Copernicus reasoned out the daily and orbital dynamics of the Earth - "Suppose person A were on the earth somewhere below the north pole of the heavens and person B were at the north pole of the heavens. In that case, to A the pole would appear to be at the zenith, and A would believe himself to be at the center; to B the earth would appear to be at the zenith, and B would believe himself to be at the center. Thus, A's zenith would be B's center, and B's zenith would be A's. And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see-- through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the Universe] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference nowhere. . . " Archbishop Cusa 15th century The issue which I originally wrote about but withdrew because of exceptionally bad proofreading is that as long as a rotating composition is in a fluid and not solid state there will be varying amounts of differential rotation depending on the viscosity of the composition.They already compare maximum equatorial speeds in different stars of roughly the same mass in terms of spherical deviation with differential rotation certainly a common factor,the subtle arguments therefore extend to all rotating bodies with spherical deviations and rotating fluid compositions hence evolutionary geology is simply an outrigger of planetary dynamics in terms of the clues left on the surface.Again,must it be 'eppur si muove' all over again using known observations to fill in speculative gaps where the fluid interior is hidden beneath the surface fractured crust. I don't mind if people think meshing astronomy with geology is boring,I wouldn't care if they never considered . |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A wikipedia detour
On Oct 31, 12:22*am, oriel36 wrote:
the astronomical observation that a rotating celestial body with a viscous composition displays differential rotation hence the highest probability for the mechanism linking the Earth's spherical deviation and plate tectonics is one that is already observed in exposed fluid celestial compositions in rotation. The molten rock in the Earth's interior is orders of magnitude more viscous than the atmosphere of Jupiter or the Sun. The "differential rotation" seen on Jupiter and the Sun has the same cause as the trade winds on Earth - the interaction between convection and rotation. Observations of the heavenly bodies are not enough by themselves. To obtain understanding, we need to relate what we see to its underlying physical cause. You're proposing we throw this out of astronomy - to make astronomy, basically, pre-scientific. No, you won't find any takers. John Savard |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A wikipedia detour
On Oct 31, 4:54*am, oriel36 wrote:
If Brian here fixes his telescope on a star in the constellation Ursa Major and allows it to track that star,he then looks at his telescope and will notice that the telescope mount becomes the axis of rotation,homocentricity in other words. The effects of parallax are small, but when we neglect them, we do so with open eyes, and are fully aware that they do exist. When they are relevant, we take them into account. So your charge against conventional astronomy is invalid. John Savard |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A wikipedia detour
On Oct 30, 11:22*pm, oriel36 wrote:
I pulled the thread because it was badly written... When it comes to content, everything you 'contribute' is badly written, so maybe you should just pull ALL your posts. If you were at all teachable, or had a logical bone in your body, it would be very different. "Most of the mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception rather than mistakes of logic." - Edward de Bono \Paul A |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A wikipedia detour
On Oct 31, 5:14*am, Skywise wrote:
The wikipedia moderators are simply enforcing the rules of the system that require all content to be referenced to verifiable sources. They've asked that you supply these references. It seems you are the one who's being obstinate and obtuse. Putting the Wikipedia system into a checkmate situation is much better than complaining about the pseudo-authority of that website thereby showing the limitations of that reference system which is now unrivaled in the world for exposure as most people putting a topic into a google search will find Wikipedia as the first site listed.As the characteristics of a rotating viscous composition is not original research they got cut to pieces when it is applied to the Earth's rotating fluid interior hence my irritation with the large institutions for the dilution of authority by those busybodies in Wikipedia who make nuisances of themselves. The Usenet is plagued with nuisances but it perhaps the only present conduit for original research where a topic does not suffer death by citation.There was once a time when men could discuss things openly,I know this from reading the correspondences between men and even those Royal Society empiricists as they went about their business.Looking at what constitutes reactions rather than responses here,there is very little to go on but considering what readers here are prepared to believe,something which is easily resolved by what a 24 hour Feb rotation does,it is no wonder I cannot expand into the incredibly exciting links between planetary spherical deviation and crustal evolution and motion using a common rotational mechanism - 'eppur si muove'. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who does what on Wikipedia? | Mike Jr | Astronomy Misc | 8 | March 14th 10 06:46 AM |
A find on Wikipedia: LESS | Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)[_74_] | History | 8 | July 28th 09 09:19 PM |
Wikipedia Said It Couldn't be Done! | John Savard[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | September 28th 07 07:46 PM |
Detour: Planetary Construction Zone Ahead | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 24th 05 10:40 PM |
Detour: Planetary Construction Zone Ahead | [email protected] | News | 0 | June 24th 05 10:39 PM |