#262 new book Continental Drift and Plate Tectonic theory updated andbased on Atom Totality theory

First I am going to repeat a old post of mine and start this post as
#262 of a new book on Continental Drift theory.
This is another Internet published book by me, amassing together old
posts on the subject and compiling
them into a book. Now the reason I am amassing this morning this book
is because I had a partial
dream about Cuba being at one time in the Pacific Ocean as per a
Nature TV show.

So let me get into the science in the next post but I want to
establish this new book. And I used
Google in a new way. I wanted to know a page number for this book and
so I searched a_plutonium
Continental Drift and Google spit out 261 hits. So I will take that
answer as to the page number of
this post as 262. As I revise this book into a 2nd edition I will have
cut out all the slack in those
261 pages.

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.geo.geology, sci.astro
From: "a_plutonium"
Date: 25 Oct 2006 00:00:10 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 25 2006 3:00 am
Subject: NOVA's "Magnetic Storm" program; A.P.'s theory that
Continental Drift is caused by the relative motion of the mantle
versus crust

Unbelievable timeing of this program, since I recently delved into
Plate Tectonics and Continental Drift with a new theory to account for
them. The new theory comes from the new discovery in the 1990s that
the
inner core is spinning faster than the rest of Earth. So if the inner
core can spin faster than why not the mantle spinning faster than the
ocean crust and why not the ocean crust spinning faster than the
continental crust. Thus, explaining all of Plate Tectonics. What gets
discarded or toned down to insignificance is Convection Heat theory
and
its silly Subduction.

(1) how can you seriously accept subduction when the continental
plates
are less dense than the ocean crust or mantle.

(2) how can you accept Convection Heat theory when it is impossible to
model this theory. A theory that cannot be modeled is a false theory.

And this program even showed them modeling the liquid outer core with
(if I remember correctly), liquid sodium at Univ of Maryland.

This program showed how the Earth Core is a dynamo, an electro-
magnetic
dynamo.

Now in my previous threads on this subject I wanted to include
Lightning Bolts from thunderstorms as a factor in Continental Drift.
But perhaps lightning bolts also play some role in "magnetic reversal
of poles"

One of the points I want to mention, is that MAGNETIC REVERSAL is far
more dangerous to human life than is Global Warming. With Global
Warming we can easily solve it by adding reflectants into the
atmosphere, in other words, imitating the volcano Pinatubo of the
early
1990s. We simply require all airplanes to release some paper or
thistle
seed into the apogee of their flightpath. But we cannot tamper with
Magnetic Reversal.

The danger with Magnetic Reversal is that for thousands of years,
Earth
loses its shield against solar radiation. And why Mars is lifeless and
its oceans disappeared because Mars lost its magnetic field and solar
winds thus blew away its water.

Never before have I seen such a great timing of NOVA broadcasting on a
subject for which I just spent a month on many of the same issues.
Perhaps the schedulers are reading the posts of A.P. and setting their
schedule accordingly.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

If one were to draw three curved line segments on a sphere surface to
represent each of the continents
then it would be easy to draw Africa, South America and North America
as elliptical triangles. This would
hint of the forces applied to those continents in their movement
during geological time.

The idea is that the deep seeded forces cause a fanning out of the
leading mass. So the longest side
of the triangle is the west coast of North and South America.

Now Australia would be shaped as a triangle also and shaped much like
a miniature Africa only where
Tasmania and the New Zealand Islands would have been the bottom horn
of Africa, but it split off from
Australia.

As for Russia and Asia together they form a triangle and where North
America is a miniature of Russia
and all of Asia as one triangle. Thailand through to Indonesia would
be the Mexico to Panama for North
American plate.

Europe is the least triangle shape because it is wedged in between the
African and the Russia+Asia
plate.

I touched on some of the above in my earlier posts on this subject
years back. However, I am more clear
now with this idea of continents forming in the **ideal** as
triangles.

So mathematicians should be able to sit down and give the best
elliptic triangle for South America, then
for North America, then for Africa. etc.

Then these mathematicians should be able to correlate the motion of
those continents with the triangle
shape they presently have. Thus, in other words, geometry has become a
window into the science
of geology.

And physics should correlate geometry with the forces of motion of the
continents. The reason
South America and North America are the most triangular is because
they are the very most
active in plate tectonic motion. So we should be able to correlate
physics of continent motion with
the geometry of present day continents.

Now as I wrote in past years, I believe electricity and magnetism have
a huge role in Continental Drift,
especially lightning bolts strikes on Earth. Whether these strikes act
as lubricant or act more as
a push propelling motion such as the vibrations atop a refrigerator
that causes the iron pots to eventually
migrate.

Now today I spent some time thinking of some models to try out as a
simulation
and I came upon the idea of caked and dried Tide soap and when placed
on
a rough board that the soap cake as it scoots along the board rubs off
pieces
and chuncks of the soap cake. I started with a round soap cake and
ended up
with a triangle shaped soap cake with the longest side in the
direction of
motion which would be obvious as the debris remains elongates that
side.

Now I am interesting in duplicating this experiment on the top of the
refrigerator
with the vibrations of the refrigerator as the carrier of motion.

So I place a caked piece of laundry powdered soap in the shape of a
circle, using
a knife to round off the cake. And place on the top middle of the
refrigerator
and check back days or weeks later to look at the "continental drift
of Tide
soap cake." Should it end up as a triangle shape?

Some questions have to be asked of our actual continents. Are the
southern
tips of South America and North America and the southern tip of Africa
and
Asia (Thailand to Indonesia) and the southern tip of Australia
(Tasmania and
what was New Zealand). If we examine these southern tips of continents
that were
in the leeward drag zone of the continental plate, is the composition
of those
southern tips of a different sort of composition. As for my soap cake,
the debris
accumulates at the leeward end of the thrust forward. So as the cake
crumbles
or the continents get sheared that the debris or talis deposits end up
at the
southern tips of those continents.

My preliminary guess is that the composition is somewhat different in
that
Mexico and Central America are heavily laden with volcanic rock. So is
the southern
tip of South America. Not sure about South Africa and not sure about
whether
Tasmania and New Zealand rock composition to the movement interface of
the plates
is different in composition. Indonesia is especially volcanic.

Maybe the geologists have researched the rocks in the southern
hemispheres and found
them to be the talis or debris of the main plate of the continent
having moved and then
deposited the friction debris and thence metamorphosed again.

So something I am looking for is the idea that the metamorphic rock of
the southern tips of
continental plates are rocks that are remetamorphosed and different
from the main composition
of the rocks of the plate.

So that I expect after a month on top of the refrigerator that the
Tide soap cake will have migrated
closer to the edge and will have changed shape from a circle to a
triangle and that the debris particles
will have formed the longest line in the triangle.

Having found out from my superconductivity book, that a book in
science is a thousand times more
interesting when a experiment is performed on the major premisses of
the book.

Now I am switching back to sci.astro from sci.math. Other planets have
plate tectonics and so
the above is pertinent to astronomers.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

This book is going to get into trouble with my other book on "Growing
Earth Theory of Dirac Radioactivities" and
what I have to do to straighten out this trouble is that the 2nd
edition of this book has to coincide with the
2nd or 3rd edition of the other book so that I can disentangle what
belongs more pertinent in each book.
Everything about a scientist should be order, order and more order.


Tree rings are beautiful for measuring the age of a tree. Radioactive
measuring of the Earth's age is
another beautiful measure. But there is a problem with Radioactive
dating of Earth's age that was
encountered in the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st.
There was lack of full disclosure
of all radioactive dating of samples. Whenever a scientist in the 20th
and up to 2008 radioactive
dated Earth and if their findings were higher than 5 billion years,
their data was dismissed and
nonprinted as error-data. The science print and press of 1900 to 2008
never allowed dates of Earth
more than 5 billion years, even though some researchers measurement of
Earth came to 10 billion
years of age. I suspect there were a number of zircon crystals
measured in 1900 to 2008 wherein
the age of Earth was found to be closer to 10 billion years old rather
than 5 billion years old. But the
science news media of editors suppressed and repressed these findings
and chalked them up as
bad lab analysis.

In my other book I talked about how Dirac said his new radioactivities
whether additive or multiplicative
would show itself in the distance of Moon to Earth and that if the
Moon were moving away from Earth
by about 2 cm per year that the Cosmos is multiplicative creation rate
of new radioactivities. It was
recently discovered that the Moon moves away with good accuracy. And I
calculated that the discharge rate
of the Amazon River at the mouth of the river to the ocean, is about
the rate at which Earth was created
via Dirac radioactivities. But, however, if the Earth is 10 billion
years old, then we need a river whose discharge
rate is a mere 1/2 of that of the Amazon. Can you name a river whose
discharge rate is 1/2 of the Amazon?
I think the Rhine river is 1/2 of the rate of discharge that the
Amazon is. So if you metaphorically put a
Rhine River out into space with its characteristic flow rate and let
it flow for 10 billion years you end up
with a spherical shaped planet consistenting of nothing but water of
the same size as Earth itself.

So the Dirac Radioactivities is a possible measuring tool of how old
Earth really is.

But now I want to talk about three more ways of dating Earth age.

(1) Continental Drift Plates are lighter rocks than the rocks they
rest on and move over. This
boundary is metamorphic rock layer and a distinguishable boundary such
as for example the Moho
boundary is distinct. It takes time for planet Earth if formed in a
Nebular Dust Cloud theory to
have formed this distinct layer of the Plates. The Plate layer is
existing over the entire globe so
it is fully in tact and not something new. So how much time does a
planet formed from a Nebular
Dust Cloud that is hypothesized at 5 billion years ago, how long would
it take for a newly formed
planet that has none of this metamorphic boundary layer of continental
plates to form that layer?
Can it be formed in 5 billion years? I doubt it. The Growing Earth
theory with its Dirac Radioactivities
would guess the age of Earth as 10 billion years old and that it takes
a planet at least 10 billion years
to have a metamorphic plate boundary sitting atop a basalt underlayer
boundary.

(2) How did Earth get so much water? The idea that all of Earth's
water comes from Comets was a
good idea until it failed to pass the test of observation that the
composition of heavy water on Earth
does not match that of Comets. So here I offer a better Theory of How
Earth Got Its Water. I speculate
that Mars and nearby surrounding planets and moons held water until
the Sun's radiation pushed the
water into space and where the Earth acts as a trap to trap much of
the water that escapes the other
neighboring astro bodies. This escape mechanism is how the comets gain
much of their water as the
water slowy migrates outward and eventually accumulates into forming a
Comet. Call it a Solar System
Rainfall or Snowfall. Earth has weather that gives rain or snow. So
here we have a Solar System that
gives Rain or Snow to its planets and Sun. The Solar radiation expells
water from its planets in which
Earth traps some of that expelled water and some of the expelled water
migrates out to the reaches
of the Comets and forms a new Comet. So the question of age with water
on Earth. Can we have a
yearly accretion of Space Water of the size of the Rhine River flow
for 10 billion years and thus account
for our Oceans full of water? Indeed we can.

Now this (2) about water and (1) about plate rock boundary differences
is going to be heavily supported
or dismissed by the new and recent findings by the robots on Mars. In
other words, the amount of information
from the planet Mars is going to solve many of our present day
problems.

(3) And this is related to the previous water evidence. Ever notice
that planet Earth has alot of salt, especially
in the oceans. Now if Earth was formed 5 billion years under the
Nebular Dust Cloud theory could the
oceans be as salty as they are today? And more important question,
would the landmasses be as
"acid of soils" not salty as they are today? Why is there so much salt
on Earth and yet not so on other
planets or satellites? Perhaps the answer is that the salt was carried
to Earth along with the newly
arriving interplanetary water that filled our oceans. So if the
Nebular Dust Cloud is true with its
5 billion year reckoning, does not explain how the continents are very
much salt free and the
oceans so full of salt.

Again we await data and information from Mars.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(2) How did Earth get so much water? The idea that all of Earth's
water comes from Comets was a
good idea until it failed to pass the test of observation that the
composition of heavy water on Earth
does not match that of Comets. So here I offer a better Theory of How
Earth Got Its Water. I speculate
that Mars and nearby surrounding planets and moons held water until
the Sun's radiation pushed the
water into space and where the Earth acts as a trap to trap much of
the water that escapes the other
neighboring astro bodies. This escape mechanism is how the comets gain
much of their water as the
water slowy migrates outward and eventually accumulates into forming a
Comet. Call it a Solar System
Rainfall or Snowfall. Earth has weather that gives rain or snow. So
here we have a Solar System that
gives Rain or Snow to its planets and Sun. The Solar radiation expells
water from its planets in which
Earth traps some of that expelled water and some of the expelled water
migrates out to the reaches
of the Comets and forms a new Comet. So the question of age with water
on Earth. Can we have a
yearly accretion of Space Water of the size of the Rhine River flow
for 10 billion years and thus account
for our Oceans full of water? Indeed we can.

Now this (2) about water and (1) about plate rock boundary differences
is going to be heavily supported
or dismissed by the new and recent findings by the robots on Mars. In
other words, the amount of information
from the planet Mars is going to solve many of our present day
problems.


Now I should have clarified the above to a large extent. Assuming
Dirac Radioactivities
as true we can thus calculate how much water is created every year on
Mercury, on
Venus, on Mars and on all planets and satellites in our Solar System,
even the Sun.
We can calculate how much water is created on every astro body via
Dirac
Radioactivities. This sounds magical to most, that water is created
from out of
nowhere and suddenly appears on the planet or body. Well that is the
Dirac
Radioactivity and why the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a fake.

So we can do those calculations of Dirac Radioactivity and then we can
estimate how
many water molecules were created on the Moon last year. Then we can
calculate how
the Solar System with its motions and with its solar radiation forces
some of the water
molecules created on the Moon (or created on Mars or Venus or Mercury)
end up
entering Earth's surface. So the Dirac Radioactivity creates new water
on the Moon
last year and we calculate how many of those water molecules end up on
the
Earth's surface. We thus can estimate how much water was created on
all the bodies
of our Solar System and how much of that water ended up on planet
Earth.

Keep in mind also, that Earth itself has some newly created Dirac
Radioactivity water
itself.

But because Earth is a sheltered planet by its Magnetosphere, that the
water that enters
Earth remains on Earth.

Now in the calculation of Dirac Radioactivities as to newly created
water where it did
not exist on a planet before, we are guided by Cosmic Abundances. How
much water
exists in the vast swathes of the Universe at large? We find out this
relative abundance
and then we apply that to the Solar System. Let us say that water is
1% of cosmic
abundance relative to all other molecules. Then we can roughly say
that of the newly
created matter via Dirac Radioactivity on the Moon surface that 1% of
that newly created
matter for a given year, that 1% is water.

I have little doubt that planet Earth and Mars were not planets some
10 billion years ago
but rather were satellites of some large planet which has long since
disappearred because it
was swallowed up by the Sun leaving Earth and Mars to wander and
become themselves
a planet. And that Mars had as vast of oceans as what Earth now has
but as it wandered further away
from the Sun than did Earth, that the Martian Oceans were radiated out
into space and where
Earth caught much of the water of Mars. And where many of the Comets
today were long ago
Martian water.

We can view the Comet belt as similar to a Earth weather pattern,
where the water of our solar
system finds its migratory way out to the comet belt where that water
solidifies into Comets
and thence starts to make a journey back into the heart of the Solar
System.

P.S. I am grateful to have been born in a time period where I am the
only scientist of astronomy
and geology who was gifted not only in logic but in enough imagination
to venture into the unknown.
There is not a single scientist alive other than myself that is gifted
in both logic and imagination
at the same time. Much of what I said above will be found false, but
some of it will be found
true.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


Now I should have clarified the above to a large extent. Assuming
Dirac Radioactivities
as true we can thus calculate how much water is created every year on
Mercury, on
Venus, on Mars and on all planets and satellites in our Solar System,
even the Sun.
We can calculate how much water is created on every astro body via
Dirac
Radioactivities. This sounds magical to most, that water is created
from out of
nowhere and suddenly appears on the planet or body. Well that is the
Dirac
Radioactivity and why the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a fake.

So we can do those calculations of Dirac Radioactivity and then we can
estimate how
many water molecules were created on the Moon last year. Then we can
calculate how
the Solar System with its motions and with its solar radiation forces
some of the water
molecules created on the Moon (or created on Mars or Venus or Mercury)
end up
entering Earth's surface. So the Dirac Radioactivity creates new water
on the Moon
last year and we calculate how many of those water molecules end up on
the
Earth's surface. We thus can estimate how much water was created on
all the bodies
of our Solar System and how much of that water ended up on planet
Earth.


Now I should mention a terrific bonus to my new theory above as to how
Earth has
all of this water and where the other planets look like dry parched
deserts. The bonus
is that this new theory also explains why there exists this
confounding Cometary Belt
of huge chunks of ice that periodically migrate through our Solar
System.

So my new theory not only explains how and why Earth has so much water
as it is
a Magnetosphere trap that traps the newly created water of Dirac
Radioactivities.

But explains that the Cometary belt is a second solar system trap. Now
I have to do
some researching into the Comet belt to see how it is a special
feature of our Solar
System in that it traps water that was created on the other bodies of
our Solar
System. Consider the Comet Belt as the gutter system of the Solar
System.
That water is created via Dirac Radioactivities in the star and
planets of our
solar system and from the radiation push of that water to the Comet
belt acting
as a gutter and then reforming that frozen water into Comets.

So my new theory not only explains how Earth is the only Ocean planet
(perhaps
Europa has oceans but the latest news seems to suggest water on Europa
is small)
as the only Magnetosphere trapping of water, but explains fully why
there is a Comet
Water Belt.

So I have to run and research the Comet belt and to what extent Europa
has oceans.

Also there was news that the poles of the Moon may have underground
water. If so, I
would have to ask the question as to why the poles? Are the poles
better protected
from solar radiation dispersal of water?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Hi.

Did you have a look here?

http://home.pages.at/jhinrichs/trace.html

JHR

According to Michael Mumma in a PBS NOVA show, Comets contain twice as
much heavy water
as does water on Earth and so comets should not be the source of
Earth's water.

But let me apply some logic to this idea of comets and how Earth
gained so much water. If planets were
biological species wanting a name, then Earth should rightfully be
called the watery planet. But applying
logic, which Mumma should have applied since he seems to be stuck on
this idea. We see alot of scientists
who fall in love with an idea but unable to apply logic that would or
should coax them away from the idea because
the logic shows how impractical. It is easy to see how Mumma would
have fallen for this idea that Earth water
source was comets. Fallen because the simplicity of comets as the
source. But here the logic steps into
the picture and makes the idea of Comets as Earth's water source look
rather absurd. Previously the idea
of comets looked like simplicity and a winner, but applying logic
makes the idea of comets look silly and
absurd. The logical question that Mumma should have asked himself
before falling in love with a Comet
Model for Earth's water is how does the Comets gain all their water
and why are they mostly a bag of
flying water in the solar system?

So you see, that Mumma falls in love with a comet model that by its
sheer simplicity would explain
Earths vast watery surface, but then a bit of logic would ask, "well,
if comets are the source of
Earth's water, then what is the source for the comets water?" So the
logic makes the Comet theory
look rather silly, afterall.

So that Mumma should have realized that to answer how Earth got a hold
of all of its water would likely answer
how do comets get a hold of so much water that they are mostly
composed of a flying ball of ice.

So to answer how Earth got its water will likely be the answer as to
how Comets get their water. That is
the pretty thing about logic, it makes us think better and come up
with better answers.

So according to Mumma, the water in comets is about double the heavy
water as found in the water on
Earth.

So let me place a jab of an answer as to how Comets and Earth gained
their waters respectively.

My theory of Solar System Water Gains: I use the Dirac Radioactivities
theory for the creation of our
Solar System, so if you are going to use the old stale and fake theory
of Nebular Dust Cloud you will
not understand much of anything. So Dirac envisioned that our Solar
System started perhaps 10 billion
years ago with seed-matter. Where the Sun and a number of planets were
seeds of matter that weighed
perhaps a milligram. And through Dirac Radioactivities (see his book
"Directions in Physics") these seeds
would collect more mass and matter by this radioactivity. Before too
long the Sun some 10 billion years
ago would be the size of a grapefruit and the planets the size of a
BB. As the years went by they would
grow by this radioactivity. We see it today in the flood of cosmic
rays and gamma ray bursts that constantly
impinge on the bodies in our solar system. Where is the source of the
radioactivity? The nucleus of the
Atom Totality itself. So given 10 billion years time we have our
present day Solar System accreted from
that radioactivity.

Now how does Earth end up with so much water and where the Comets are
mostly ice balls double the
amount of heavy water? Well water is created by Dirac Radioactivities
uniformily per existing mass. So
most of the water created is in the Sun and Jupiter since they are the
most massive but the water created
in the Sun and Mercury, Venus, Mars and other planets does not stay
put on those planets due to solar
radiation and are driven off those bodies except for Earth where there
is a Magnetosphere. So Earth is like
a huge gutter of the water that was created on other astro bodies
nearby and which ends up intersecting
the orbit of Earth and the Magnetosphere keeps the water here.

Now the Comet belt is another Gutter Effect, in that the Comet belt
traps alot of this interplanetary and solar
water. So why is it twice the amount of heavy water than the Earth's
water? That is easy to answer with
Dirac radioactivity which created the water in the first place and is
adding more radioactive newly created
mass to the already existing mass of the water molecules in the
Cometary Belt. So as this water traverses
past Earth and not trapped by Earth makes its long journey out to the
Comet Belt where it is then reformed
into huge ice balls and while it is making this reformulation, that
the Dirac radioactivities has ample time
to add on extra neutrons to the nucleus of the water atoms.

Here is an experiment that some future scientists will perform when
space travel is much easier than
today. Where we take a mass of heavy element such as uranium and we
refine it very pure
so we know the nuclide composition to a very high precision and we
subject this material to a long
trek across the Solar System and wait for it to return. What we should
find from this voyager is that
some of the uranium atoms are now contaminated with atoms of
plutonium. How could this be?
Because in the journey the Dirac radioactivities created some extra
neutrons on some atoms of uranium.

So all I have to do for the above is find out more about the volume of
space that the Comets dwell in
and find out how that volume can act as a Gutter Effect of the water
created in the inner solar system
that gets pushed out into this Cometary belt. For Earth we already
know how it acts as a gutter in that
the Magnetosphere traps the incoming water.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Now I have two hardened cakes of Tide powder soap about the size of
the palm of my hand situated at
190 mm from the edge of the top of my refrigerator. So the
refrigerator acts as the prime mover and the
cakes act as a continental plate. In previous years the vibrations of
the refrigerator would eventually move
pots to fall off. Now I use the vibrations as the continental drift.
Now I do not know how well these
cakes imitate continental plates. But I am curious to find out what
happens to them. There maybe
some problem with the cakes becoming too dry and thus crumbling. But I
will give it a watch.

What I hope to find is as the cakes migrate to the edge that they
become broader in crumble pieces
just as North America and South America became broader on the West
Coasts. Leaving a triangle
shape for North and South America. So I am hoping to see some
resemblance of the Tide cakes
with the shape of the continents.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Now I have two hardened cakes of Tide powder soap about the size of
the palm of my hand situated at
190 mm from the edge of the top of my refrigerator. So the
refrigerator acts as the prime mover and the
cakes act as a continental plate. In previous years the vibrations of
the refrigerator would eventually move
pots to fall off. Now I use the vibrations as the continental drift.
Now I do not know how well these
cakes imitate continental plates. But I am curious to find out what
happens to them. There maybe
some problem with the cakes becoming too dry and thus crumbling. But I
will give it a watch.

What I hope to find is as the cakes migrate to the edge that they
become broader in crumble pieces
just as North America and South America became broader on the West
Coasts. Leaving a triangle
shape for North and South America. So I am hoping to see some
resemblance of the Tide cakes
with the shape of the continents.


Yes, I have some good news to report for there has been some vibration
motion
that has affected the cakes position. The cakes are 80 x 30mm round
and placed
190mm from edge and today they are 185mm from edge and they have
a talus deposit of loose grains of Tide soap in the southern direction
that is 50mm
long.

So what the cakes are beginning to outline is a Triangle shape having
started
as a round cake and with the talus deposit they are outlining a
triangle.

I expect as the cakes migrate closer to the edge of the refrigerator,
that
they will look more and more like a South America or North America or
Africa or Asia.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies