|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#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
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 . |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A wikipedia detour
On Oct 31, 10:54*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.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 Let's be simple here and forget difficult words like parallax. Like your primitive priest you may not have grasped the fact that the stars are a long way away. So far away that even from opposite sides of the Earth's orbit only the nearest stars appear to move against the background. Arcbishop Cusa obviously thought that the stars were only a short distance away. That's not surprising. As a priest he was paid to believe and persuade others to believe in fairy stories. In case you hadn't noticed the rotation of the Earth is, by definition a geocentric phenomenon. The Brian/polaris/Pole angle is so small that it's unmeasurably close to zero. That's why telescopes with a siderial time drive track the stars. Archbishop Cusa would not use these arguments if he were alive today because he would, like you, have access to more modern knowledge but unlike you he would have accepted this knowledge as truth and not tried to deny the evidence as some great fraud by Flamsteed. This constancy of the siderial day is also why navigators needed lunar observations to check and correct the times on their chronometers. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#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, 6:57*pm, palsing wrote:
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 Son,when you discover what a 24 hour Feb 29th rotation does in closing out nearly 4 orbital circuits of 365 1/4 rotations then let me know and you will all be fine,and then you can go on to discover that the day/night cycle is due to daily rotation with no more than a full 365 rotations in one year,not an calendar year mind you,but an orbital year. I find it difficult to believe that I have to explain something as fundamental as that in a forum where everyone thinks they are astronomers or has an interest in astronomy.If you can't associate daily rotation with the daylight/darkness cycle then grovel all you like,I would be just as miserable if I had to believe there were 366 1/4 rotations because some powdered wig in the late 17th century announced it,otherwise,people have not thought the correct principles through from the standpoint of a leap day rotation as an arithmetic string and groups into 365 and 366 rotations for 4 orbital circuits. Now your time is over with me,I commend you for keeping on topic but turned into noise like all the other nuisances a while ago. |
|
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 |