|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth
Hi All,
A few nights ago I was thinking about a hypothetical theory. The full explanation will be below, but as a short introduction I think Earth doesn't only rotate around it's own axis of rotation and orbits the sun, I'm guessing you also could derive a point in space where our solar system rotates around, solely by studying the shapes of the continents. If this is an already existing theory, don't bother reading further, since I don't want to hostage your precious time. Before I continue, I must tell you I'm not an astronomer, nor a geologist, not even a hobbyist in both areas. And I'm also not a mathematician. I do know something about mechanical engineering, which involves masses of inertia, centers of gravity and centrifugal forces. Here comes a summary of what I thought of that night: The point in space I try to prove is a point I like to call 'Dé Blondine'. First, I want you to imagine a balloon filled with water and tied with a knot. An undeniable child's play. If you hold the balloon by it's knot and you spin the balloon around your fingers, then the balloon will soon have a triangular shape. One side of the triangle most far away from your fingers and two sides pointing at your fingers. What you do by spinning the balloon is creating a centrifugal force on the water, then the center of gravity of the water will move to the part of the balloon most far away from your fingers, also creating a moment of inertia. Second, I want you to dip the same balloon in water and then to rotate the balloon the same way as described above. Then watch the water. Most of the water wil start leaving the balloon where centrifugal forces are highest and that's a point on the balloon furthest from your fingers. I always wondered why the continents weren't concentrated around the equator. Because, when centrifugal forces due to the Earth's rotation do it's work, it means that landmasses would be concentrated around the equator and that's not reality. This should work just as with the balloon dipped in water and being rotated. Then, if you consider the shapes of the continents, North-America, South-America, Africa and Asia have more or less triangular shape. Europe could fit in the triangle of Asia and Australia is what I think forming a triangle. So, the triangular continents all have it's center of gravity at the part of the continent facing the north-pole. NB: I didn't much take account of mountains, I just considered the flat surface of the continents as seen on Google Maps and other maps, also trying to keep in mind the projection-method used on those maps. (spherish Earth -- flat rectangle map, perhaps Mercator is involved) Now, if you link the triangular shape of the rotating balloon with the triangular shape of the continents, then you could probably also figure out that when you look up in the air at the center of gravity of Antarctica, you should see 'Dé Blondine'. I know that a spinning balloon doesn't look like a spinning Earth and also, maybe I may not derive a point in space derived from triangular shapes of the continents on earth, based on watching a spinning balloon, but it seemed like an unlikely coincidence to me. Also, I'm unable to comprehend what's the role of water when forming continents. So, why Antarctica? Antarctica is a very circular continent and seems to be unifluenced by any centrifugal force. You have Earth's rotation, highest at the equator an non-existing at the poles. Then there might be a rotation around 'Dé Blondine', which results in higher centrifugal force around north-pole than at south-pole, meaning that Antarctica should push other continents to the north-pole and also keeps it's circular shape. To be more specific: if the South-Pole does not represent the center of gravity of Antarctica, then I'd like to introduce the 'Southern Blondine'. The 'Northern Blondine' would be positioned near the North-Pole and be on the same axis between 'Dé Blondine' and the 'Southern Blondine', though being in-line with each other. The hypothesis continues, because if you overlook what I just wrote, you could imagine that once the landmasses were concentrated up and around Antarctica, or better: around the 'Southern Blondine'. And now are they moving to be concentrated up and around the 'Northern Blondine'. Preservation is important, you prefer to put your food into the fridge and freezer to keep the food longer fresh and tasty. Well, landmasses should also preserve better in a cold region, like it once was around the 'Southern Blondine'. In a later stage, even, when you consider the ice from around the 'Northern Blondine', it should keep the moving landmasses from moving to fast to the 'Northern Blondine'. And later on ... I could be speaking about intelligent design, but personally I consider myself as not a very religious person, even the lesser religion the better, due to cultural habits that's not always possible. Zut. The latitudinal partitioning of the landmasses is something I like to describe as following: when a potter has finished a pot made of clay and forgets the pot on the turntable, then the clay pot will fall apart in different directions, almost chaotically. How I'd like to prove this theory? The shape of the landmasses are more or less clear to me, and what those shapes mean is also more or less clear, but there must be something more. Other planets should also have an axis that points to 'Dé Blondine'. Perhaps the rings of Saturn reveal something pointing in that direction. I'm eager to know what you think of my theorie of 'Dé Blondine', does it seem plausible and logical to you? Thanks in advance, Best regards, Ve. Ni. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth
On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:56:54 -0700 (PDT), Nico V
wrote: A few nights ago I was thinking about a hypothetical theory. The full explanation will be below, but as a short introduction I think Earth doesn't only rotate around it's own axis of rotation and orbits the sun, I'm guessing you also could derive a point in space where our solar system rotates around, solely by studying the shapes of the continents. The next point of rotation of the Solar System is the galactic center, unless you include some very slow precessional modes. Suffice to say, the positions and shapes of the continents have changed radically over the history of the Earth, and are continuing to do so- all well explained by convective forces inside the Earth which are orders of magnitude greater than any centripetal forces that are present from orbital motions. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth
On May 28, 8:47*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:56:54 -0700 (PDT), Nico V wrote: A few nights ago I was thinking about a hypothetical theory. The full explanation will be below, but as a short introduction I think Earth doesn't only rotate around it's own axis of rotation and orbits the sun, I'm guessing you also could derive a point in space where our solar system rotates around, solely by studying the shapes of the continents. The next point of rotation of the Solar System is the galactic center, unless you include some very slow precessional modes. Suffice to say, the positions and shapes of the continents have changed radically over the history of the Earth, and are continuing to do so- all well explained by convective forces inside the Earth which are orders of magnitude greater than any centripetal forces that are present from orbital motions. The 'convection cell' mechanism is possibly as bad as this guy's idea. This is how I know that none of you act like astronomers,I mean I grant you the excitement of the transit event outside the context of its dynamics and that of the Earth,but in the matter of the fluid dynamics of the Earth's interior and how it acts on the surface crust in terms of crustal evolution/motion,I have yet to see another astronomer work through the arguments.It actually would make the Earth a singular exception among all rotating celestial bodies with viscous compositions to exempt it flow zonal flow,differential rotation or an uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes in order to account for the clues left on the surface crust and the 26 mile spherical deviation between equatorial and polar diameters. Astronomy is an exciting business every day rather than just these rare events where people emerge from their slumber for a few days and then drift off to sleep until the next photographic event.For a genuine astronomer,a breaking dawn is just as spectacular and we go about our business of maintaining a flow of information between dynamics,terrestrial effects or events such as transits where a moving Earth and a moving Venus play out an orbital cycle with the central Sun as a backdrop for a very short while. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth
On 28 mei, 20:56, Nico V wrote:
Then, if you consider the shapes of the continents, North-America, South-America, Africa and Asia have more or less triangular shape. Europe could fit in the triangle of Asia and Australia is what I think forming a triangle. So, the triangular continents all have it's center of gravity at the part of the continent facing the north-pole. NB: I didn't much take account of mountains, I just considered the flat surface of the continents as seen on Google Maps and other maps, also trying to keep in mind the projection-method used on those maps. (spherish Earth -- flat rectangle map, perhaps Mercator is involved) What really bothers me is the fact of those triangular shapes of most of the continents and why they all have the same orientation. Nobody could explain that yet. And that's why I thought some enormious centrifugal forces are involved. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth
In sci.astro.amateur message dacd2316-dd8a-4d24-9975-9681c04e7783@f30g2
000vbz.googlegroups.com, Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:52:09, Nico V posted: What really bothers me is the fact of those triangular shapes of most of the continents and why they all have the same orientation. Nobody could explain that yet Try a Google search for "continental drip" . -- (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth
On Jun 21, 6:51*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote: In sci.astro.amateur message dacd2316-dd8a-4d24-9975-9681c04e7783@f30g2 000vbz.googlegroups.com, Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:52:09, Nico V posted: What really bothers me is the fact of those triangular shapes of most of the continents and why they all have the same orientation. Nobody could explain that yet Try a Google search for * "continental drip" * . That should be continental drift as the planet's geological evolution relies heavily on the difference between continental crust and oceanic crust where the latter comes under the influence of the rotating fluid interior.Trying to explain the shape of the continents using centrifugal forces misses the point of the evolution of crust through spreading centers and especially the Mid Atlantic Ridge which is a testament to the lag/advance mechanism of differential rotation - a mechanism known to all astronomers who look at rotating celestial objects with exposed viscous compositions. Planetary shape and the 26 mile difference between equatorial and polar diameters fits neatly in with an uneven rotational gradient by virtue of planetary comparisons where Venus has no tectonic activity beyond volcanic while it has no appreciable spherical deviation due to residual rotation.Turn what way you will,in order to consider a rotational mechanism which drives the continental crust apart,it must dovetail with planetary shape and that requires the core fact that the Earth turns 15 degrees/1037.5 miles at the equator and a full 24901 mile circumference in 24 hours. It is something else to have worldwide geology departments who cannot operate with the most fundamental fact of all in that the Earth is round,rotating and has specific values attached.I have seen them act like petty thieves in Wikipedia in trying to cobble together a rotational mechanism like Frankenstein's monster with bits patched together from here and there instead of the ease of reasoning which combines plate tectonics with planetary shape using an already observed feature of rotating fluid dynamics. -- *(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. * Turnpike v6.05 * MIME. * *Web *http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. *Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036) *Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth
Op vrijdag 22 juni 2012 08:29:53 UTC+2 schreef oriel36 het volgende:
On Jun 21, 6:51*pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote: In sci.astro.amateur message dacd2316-dd8a-4d24-9975-9681c04e7783@f30g2 000vbz.googlegroups.com, Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:52:09, Nico V posted: What really bothers me is the fact of those triangular shapes of most of the continents and why they all have the same orientation. Nobody could explain that yet Try a Google search for * "continental drip" * . That should be continental drift as the planet's geological evolution relies heavily on the difference between continental crust and oceanic crust where the latter comes under the influence of the rotating fluid interior.Trying to explain the shape of the continents using centrifugal forces misses the point of the evolution of crust through spreading centers and especially the Mid Atlantic Ridge which is a testament to the lag/advance mechanism of differential rotation - a mechanism known to all astronomers who look at rotating celestial objects with exposed viscous compositions. Planetary shape and the 26 mile difference between equatorial and polar diameters fits neatly in with an uneven rotational gradient by virtue of planetary comparisons where Venus has no tectonic activity beyond volcanic while it has no appreciable spherical deviation due to residual rotation.Turn what way you will,in order to consider a rotational mechanism which drives the continental crust apart,it must dovetail with planetary shape and that requires the core fact that the Earth turns 15 degrees/1037.5 miles at the equator and a full 24901 mile circumference in 24 hours. It is something else to have worldwide geology departments who cannot operate with the most fundamental fact of all in that the Earth is round,rotating and has specific values attached.I have seen them act like petty thieves in Wikipedia in trying to cobble together a rotational mechanism like Frankenstein's monster with bits patched together from here and there instead of the ease of reasoning which combines plate tectonics with planetary shape using an already observed feature of rotating fluid dynamics. -- *(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. * Turnpike v6.05 * MIME. * *Web *http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. *Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036) *Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036) I really do support continental drift. And I only suggest the continents drifted originally away from antarctica. About the triangular shapes and the identical orientations: the density of earth is higher than water and the outside of a mass influenced by a centrifugal force always contains the heaviest particles. You also have to consider the stability of Earth's rotation. Too much heavy particles, like earth, around the equator on one side of Earth, let's say for example Africa, and perhaps it then becomes possible that Earth drift's out of it's orbit around the Sun, just because of an unstable rotation. I know a system always drifts towards a stable condition. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:52:09 -0700 (PDT), Nico V
wrote: About the triangular shapes and the identical orientations: the density of earth is higher than water and the outside of a mass influenced by a centrifugal force always contains the heaviest particles. That is not true. You need to consider all the forces that a particle is subject to. In the case of Earth, the effect of gravity is much greater than the effect of centrifugal force, which is why we have an iron core and a silicate crust, and not the other way around. You also have to consider the stability of Earth's rotation. Too much heavy particles, like earth, around the equator on one side of Earth, let's say for example Africa, and perhaps it then becomes possible that Earth drift's out of it's orbit around the Sun, just because of an unstable rotation. A lopsided body will not drift out of its solar orbit. I know a system always drifts towards a stable condition. Not so. Systems become unstable under all kinds of conditions. In the absence of external inputs, systems tend towards the lowest energy state, which is not necessarily stable, or may not be reached without becoming unstable first. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth
On Jul 2, 8:21*pm, Chris L Peterson
The planet's geological circumference is 24 901 miles at the equator which makes 15 degrees of geographical separation equal to 1037.5 miles.Come back to the thread when you learn that the equatorial Earth turns at a rate of 15 degrees/1037.5 miles an hour and a full circumference in 24 hours. You might even have a chance to comprehend the uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes in the rotating fluid interior which is responsible for the 26 mile spherical deviation between equatorial and polar diameters and consequently the lag/ advance mechanism for crustal generation off the Mid Atlantic Ridge. An astronomer takes the observation that rotating celestial bodies with exposed viscous compositions display differential rotation hence to exempt the Earth from this feature takes quite an effort.The joys of astronomy reside in piecing together cause and effect hence the neat meshing of the Earth's magnetic field,spherical deviation and plate tectonics using a single mechanism as the highest probability of success. What can be said for a geological community that can't comprehend the primary geological fact of a round and rotating Earth with values attached - forget 'climate change',this is where the real issues exist. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth
Op vrijdag 22 juni 2012 08:29:53 UTC+2 schreef oriel36 het volgende: On Jun 21, 6:51*pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote: In sci.astro.amateur message dacd2316-dd8a-4d24-9975-9681c04e7783@f30g2 000vbz.googlegroups.com, Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:52:09, Nico V posted: What really bothers me is the fact of those triangular shapes of most of the continents and why they all have the same orientation. Nobody could explain that yet Try a Google search for * "continental drip" * . That should be continental drift No. I meant "drip". Such a search conclusively refutes "Nobody could explain that yet". The correctness of the explanation is irrelevant. -- (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth | Nico V | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 28th 12 07:56 PM |
Spinning creates Inertia,and Inertia is Used by nature to BalanceGrav | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 1 | December 3rd 06 05:25 AM |
Early Earth Likely Had Continents And Was Habitable, Says New Study (Forwarded) | Nog | Policy | 5 | November 21st 05 09:40 PM |
Early Earth Likely Had Continents And Was Habitable, Says New Study(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 18th 05 03:15 AM |
Early Earth Likely Had Continents And Was Habitable, Says New Study(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | November 18th 05 02:47 AM |