A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Know your gravity from a hole in the ground



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 10th 08, 09:18 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro.amateur
Dave Typinski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 93
Default Know your gravity from a hole in the ground

oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 10, 8:10*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 10, 1:05*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 9, 5:59*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 9, 7:19*am, Dave Typinski wrote:


The latest installment of Typinski procrastinates against anything
productive found me investigating gravitational acceleration within
the Earth.


It doesn't go quite as one might expect... not even in the right
direction. *Acceleration goes up and down through the crust, then
steadily increases through the bottom half of the mantle the closer
you get to that big ol' ball of nickel-iron down there.


http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/EarthGrav.htm


--
Dave


Good,you would not dare post this topic on sci.astro.amateur so *I
guess you have learned your lesson pretty quickly .


Since you insist...
--
Dave


Good,just as I thought and predictable.


Planetary shape is reliant on rotational dynamics and the specifics of
that dynamic,especially the rotation of the viscous composition below
the fractured surface crust.


Stellar dynamicists have been working with the correlation between
maximum Equatorial speed,spherical deviation between Equatorial and
polar diameters -


http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5604


The missing component is differential rotation as the latitudinal
shear bands differ between Equatorial and polar regions depending on
maximum Equatorial speed and reducing to zero speed at the poles
therefore there is a triumvirate of correlations for any rotating
celestial bodies with a viscous composition whether it it stellar
plasma or the internal viscous composition of the Earth,these intimate
correlations are maximum Equatorial speed,differential rotation and
spherical deviation.


The 40 Km spherical deviation of the Earth is due to differential
rotation between Equatorial and polar regions


snip


DIfferential rotation? *At what possible magnitude, a few microradians
per century?
--
Dave


Differential rotation is a consequence of fluid dynamics and
specifically that pf a rotating celestial object with a viscous
composition.This *rotational dynamic replaces stationary Earth and
thermally driven 'convection cells notion ' as the mechanism for
crustal motion by first accounting for the 40Km planetary spherical
deviation first and then uses the same mechanism to drive plate
tectonics.


snip

You claimed that the Earth exhibited differential rotation, which
implied that the crust exhibited this phenomenon, which is clearly not
the case in any reasonable fashion.


I have a very good reason to believe that your reasoning is typical
and that is why I alone work with differential rotation as a
consequence of fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial body with a
viscous interior .The implications are really only for those who can
handle rotational dynamics and unfortunately I have yet to meet one
person who can apply the lessons learned from observed stellar
rotational dynamics and apply the generalized principles which link
maximum Equatorial speed with spherical deviation via differential
rotation.



*If instead you mean just the
fluid core, then it beats me. *I know squat about the dynamics of the
Earth's core, so your ideas may be as good as anyone else's for all I
know.





It is always nice to see a guy arrive with a gung-ho attitude in
sci.astro.amateur and then quickly dissolve into another empirical
clone and adopt a docile personality,


The trick is to know what one doesn't know. *One is gung ho about
things one knows one knows. *One defers on things one knows one
doesn't know.
--
Dave


Fair reply however the idea is not to conjure up whatever story is
needed to reach whatever conclusion is desired,the object is to enjoy
a specific arrangement of reasoning that fits observations

snip

Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. The
only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2)
the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane.

If the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, there's no
precession. Yet precession exists. Does your specific arrangement of
reasoning agree with the observable fact that Earth's spin axis
precesses?
  #12  
Old November 11th 08, 08:06 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro.amateur
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,189
Default Know your gravity from a hole in the ground

On Nov 10, 9:18*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 10, 8:10*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 10, 1:05*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 9, 5:59*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 9, 7:19*am, Dave Typinski wrote:


The latest installment of Typinski procrastinates against anything
productive found me investigating gravitational acceleration within
the Earth.


It doesn't go quite as one might expect... not even in the right
direction. *Acceleration goes up and down through the crust, then
steadily increases through the bottom half of the mantle the closer
you get to that big ol' ball of nickel-iron down there.


http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/EarthGrav.htm


--
Dave


Good,you would not dare post this topic on sci.astro.amateur so *I
guess you have learned your lesson pretty quickly .


Since you insist...
--
Dave


Good,just as I thought and predictable.


Planetary shape is reliant on rotational dynamics and the specifics of
that dynamic,especially the rotation of the viscous composition below
the fractured surface crust.


Stellar dynamicists have been working with the correlation between
maximum Equatorial speed,spherical deviation between Equatorial and
polar diameters -


http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5604


The missing component is differential rotation as the latitudinal
shear bands differ between Equatorial and polar regions depending on
maximum Equatorial speed and reducing to zero speed at the poles
therefore there is a triumvirate of correlations for any rotating
celestial bodies with a viscous composition whether it it stellar
plasma or the internal viscous composition of the Earth,these intimate
correlations are maximum Equatorial speed,differential rotation and
spherical deviation.


The 40 Km spherical deviation of the Earth is due to differential
rotation between Equatorial and polar regions


snip


DIfferential rotation? *At what possible magnitude, a few microradians
per century?
--
Dave


Differential rotation is a consequence of fluid dynamics and
specifically that pf a rotating celestial object with a viscous
composition.This *rotational dynamic replaces stationary Earth and
thermally driven 'convection cells notion ' as the mechanism for
crustal motion by first accounting for the 40Km planetary spherical
deviation first and then uses the same mechanism to drive plate
tectonics.


snip


You claimed that the Earth exhibited differential rotation, which
implied that the crust exhibited this phenomenon, which is clearly not
the case in any reasonable fashion.


I have a very good reason to believe that your reasoning is typical
and that is why *I alone work with differential rotation as a
consequence of fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial body with a
viscous interior .The implications are really only for those who can
handle rotational dynamics and unfortunately I have yet to meet one
person who can apply the lessons learned from observed stellar
rotational dynamics and apply the generalized principles which link
maximum Equatorial speed with spherical deviation via differential
rotation.


*If instead you mean just the
fluid core, then it beats me. *I know squat about the dynamics of the
Earth's core, so your ideas may be as good as anyone else's for all I
know.


It is always nice to see a guy arrive with a gung-ho attitude in
sci.astro.amateur and then quickly dissolve into another empirical
clone and adopt a docile personality,


The trick is to know what one doesn't know. *One is gung ho about
things one knows one knows. *One defers on things one knows one
doesn't know.
--
Dave


Fair reply however the idea is not to conjure up whatever story is
needed to reach whatever conclusion is desired,the object is to enjoy
a specific arrangement of reasoning that fits observations


snip

Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. *The
only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2)
the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. *

If the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, there's no
precession. *Yet precession exists. *Does your specific arrangement of
reasoning agree with the observable fact that Earth's spin axis
precesses?


'Spin axis' indeed !,the topic of fluid dynamics of a rotating
celestial object with a viscous composition and subsequently
differential rotation is not suited for people who believe in a
'rigid' axis and despite the sense that genuine people are
desperate to discuss rotational dynamics applied to geodynamic
consequences,they cannot remove themselves from 'convection cells' to
accomplish the shift to rotation dynamics.

I am just getting used to the idea that posting graphics designed to
embarrass people into action actually make sense to them such as this
one -

http://www.yorku.ca/esse/veo/earth/image/1-3-2.JPG

Look,if you want to believe in a 'convection cell' dynamic then good
for you,I prefer rotational dynamics as the mechanism which generates
the 40 Km spherical deviation of the planet and provides the
mechanism for the evolution and motion of the fractured crust via
differential rotation.The link is a huge advance and there are more
than a few who already know it.


  #13  
Old November 11th 08, 02:45 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro.amateur
Dave Typinski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 93
Default Know your gravity from a hole in the ground

oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 10, 9:18*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 10, 8:10*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 10, 1:05*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 9, 5:59*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 9, 7:19*am, Dave Typinski wrote:


The latest installment of Typinski procrastinates against anything
productive found me investigating gravitational acceleration within
the Earth.


It doesn't go quite as one might expect... not even in the right
direction. *Acceleration goes up and down through the crust, then
steadily increases through the bottom half of the mantle the closer
you get to that big ol' ball of nickel-iron down there.


http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/EarthGrav.htm


--
Dave


Good,you would not dare post this topic on sci.astro.amateur so *I
guess you have learned your lesson pretty quickly .


Since you insist...
--
Dave


Good,just as I thought and predictable.


Planetary shape is reliant on rotational dynamics and the specifics of
that dynamic,especially the rotation of the viscous composition below
the fractured surface crust.


Stellar dynamicists have been working with the correlation between
maximum Equatorial speed,spherical deviation between Equatorial and
polar diameters -


http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5604


The missing component is differential rotation as the latitudinal
shear bands differ between Equatorial and polar regions depending on
maximum Equatorial speed and reducing to zero speed at the poles
therefore there is a triumvirate of correlations for any rotating
celestial bodies with a viscous composition whether it it stellar
plasma or the internal viscous composition of the Earth,these intimate
correlations are maximum Equatorial speed,differential rotation and
spherical deviation.


The 40 Km spherical deviation of the Earth is due to differential
rotation between Equatorial and polar regions


snip


DIfferential rotation? *At what possible magnitude, a few microradians
per century?
--
Dave


Differential rotation is a consequence of fluid dynamics and
specifically that pf a rotating celestial object with a viscous
composition.This *rotational dynamic replaces stationary Earth and
thermally driven 'convection cells notion ' as the mechanism for
crustal motion by first accounting for the 40Km planetary spherical
deviation first and then uses the same mechanism to drive plate
tectonics.


snip


You claimed that the Earth exhibited differential rotation, which
implied that the crust exhibited this phenomenon, which is clearly not
the case in any reasonable fashion.


I have a very good reason to believe that your reasoning is typical
and that is why *I alone work with differential rotation as a
consequence of fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial body with a
viscous interior .The implications are really only for those who can
handle rotational dynamics and unfortunately I have yet to meet one
person who can apply the lessons learned from observed stellar
rotational dynamics and apply the generalized principles which link
maximum Equatorial speed with spherical deviation via differential
rotation.


*If instead you mean just the
fluid core, then it beats me. *I know squat about the dynamics of the
Earth's core, so your ideas may be as good as anyone else's for all I
know.


It is always nice to see a guy arrive with a gung-ho attitude in
sci.astro.amateur and then quickly dissolve into another empirical
clone and adopt a docile personality,


The trick is to know what one doesn't know. *One is gung ho about
things one knows one knows. *One defers on things one knows one
doesn't know.
--
Dave


Fair reply however the idea is not to conjure up whatever story is
needed to reach whatever conclusion is desired,the object is to enjoy
a specific arrangement of reasoning that fits observations


snip

Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. *The
only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2)
the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. *

If the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, there's no
precession. *Yet precession exists. *Does your specific arrangement of
reasoning agree with the observable fact that Earth's spin axis
precesses?


'Spin axis' indeed !,the topic of fluid dynamics of a rotating
celestial object with a viscous composition and subsequently
differential rotation is not suited for people who believe in a
'rigid' axis and despite the sense that genuine people are
desperate to discuss rotational dynamics applied to geodynamic
consequences,they cannot remove themselves from 'convection cells' to
accomplish the shift to rotation dynamics.

I am just getting used to the idea that posting graphics designed to
embarrass people into action actually make sense to them such as this
one -

http://www.yorku.ca/esse/veo/earth/image/1-3-2.JPG

Look,if you want to believe in a 'convection cell' dynamic then good
for you,I prefer rotational dynamics as the mechanism which generates
the 40 Km spherical deviation of the planet and provides the
mechanism for the evolution and motion of the fractured crust via
differential rotation.The link is a huge advance and there are more
than a few who already know it.


You're flailing. You're also failing to make your point and failing
to address the question of precession. Precession is a testable
prediction of your line of reasoning.

Your line of reasoning fails the test.

Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. *The
only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2)
the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. *If
the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, as you claim,
there's no precession. *Yet precession exists.

Therefore, if you want to enjoy a specific arrangement of reasoning
that agrees with observation, you will need to account for that fact.
As such, you have several options, chief among which a

1) Convince yourself that precession doesn't really exist, that it's
all a Newtonian conspiracy to keep the true astronomers down.

2) Find out why precession works the way it does and adjust
your line of reasoning to fit observation.

The choice is yours.
--
Dave
  #14  
Old November 11th 08, 02:53 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro.amateur
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,189
Default Know your gravity from a hole in the ground

On Nov 11, 2:45*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 10, 9:18*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 10, 8:10*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 10, 1:05*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 9, 5:59*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 9, 7:19*am, Dave Typinski wrote:


The latest installment of Typinski procrastinates against anything
productive found me investigating gravitational acceleration within
the Earth.


It doesn't go quite as one might expect... not even in the right
direction. *Acceleration goes up and down through the crust, then
steadily increases through the bottom half of the mantle the closer
you get to that big ol' ball of nickel-iron down there.


http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/EarthGrav.htm


--
Dave


Good,you would not dare post this topic on sci.astro.amateur so *I
guess you have learned your lesson pretty quickly .


Since you insist...
--
Dave


Good,just as I thought and predictable.


Planetary shape is reliant on rotational dynamics and the specifics of
that dynamic,especially the rotation of the viscous composition below
the fractured surface crust.


Stellar dynamicists have been working with the correlation between
maximum Equatorial speed,spherical deviation between Equatorial and
polar diameters -


http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5604


The missing component is differential rotation as the latitudinal
shear bands differ between Equatorial and polar regions depending on
maximum Equatorial speed and reducing to zero speed at the poles
therefore there is a triumvirate of correlations for any rotating
celestial bodies with a viscous composition whether it it stellar
plasma or the internal viscous composition of the Earth,these intimate
correlations are maximum Equatorial speed,differential rotation and
spherical deviation.


The 40 Km spherical deviation of the Earth is due to differential
rotation between Equatorial and polar regions


snip


DIfferential rotation? *At what possible magnitude, a few microradians
per century?
--
Dave


Differential rotation is a consequence of fluid dynamics and
specifically that pf a rotating celestial object with a viscous
composition.This *rotational dynamic replaces stationary Earth and
thermally driven 'convection cells notion ' as the mechanism for
crustal motion by first accounting for the 40Km planetary spherical
deviation first and then uses the same mechanism to drive plate
tectonics.


snip


You claimed that the Earth exhibited differential rotation, which
implied that the crust exhibited this phenomenon, which is clearly not
the case in any reasonable fashion.


I have a very good reason to believe that your reasoning is typical
and that is why *I alone work with differential rotation as a
consequence of fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial body with a
viscous interior .The implications are really only for those who can
handle rotational dynamics and unfortunately I have yet to meet one
person who can apply the lessons learned from observed stellar
rotational dynamics and apply the generalized principles which link
maximum Equatorial speed with spherical deviation via differential
rotation.


*If instead you mean just the
fluid core, then it beats me. *I know squat about the dynamics of the
Earth's core, so your ideas may be as good as anyone else's for all I
know.


It is always nice to see a guy arrive with a gung-ho attitude in
sci.astro.amateur and then quickly dissolve into another empirical
clone and adopt a docile personality,


The trick is to know what one doesn't know. *One is gung ho about
things one knows one knows. *One defers on things one knows one
doesn't know.
--
Dave


Fair reply however the idea is not to conjure up whatever story is
needed to reach whatever conclusion is desired,the object is to enjoy
a specific arrangement of reasoning that fits observations


snip


Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. *The
only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2)
the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. *


If the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, there's no
precession. *Yet precession exists. *Does your specific arrangement of
reasoning agree with the observable fact that Earth's spin axis
precesses?


'Spin axis' indeed !,the topic of fluid dynamics of a rotating
celestial object with a viscous composition *and subsequently
differential rotation is not suited for people who believe in a
'rigid' axis *and despite the *sense that genuine people are
desperate * to discuss rotational dynamics applied to geodynamic
consequences,they cannot remove themselves from 'convection cells' to
accomplish the shift to rotation dynamics.


I am just getting used to the idea that posting graphics designed to
embarrass people into action actually make sense to them such as this
one -


http://www.yorku.ca/esse/veo/earth/image/1-3-2.JPG


Look,if you want to believe in a 'convection cell' dynamic then good
for you,I prefer rotational dynamics as the mechanism which generates
the 40 Km spherical deviation of the planet and *provides the
mechanism for the evolution and motion of the fractured crust via
differential rotation.The link is a huge advance and there are more
than a few who already know it.


You're flailing. *You're also failing to make your point and failing
to address the question of precession. *Precession is a testable
prediction of your line of reasoning.

Your line of reasoning fails the test.

Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. *The
only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2)
the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. *If
the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, as you claim,
there's no precession. *Yet precession exists.

Therefore, if you want to enjoy a specific arrangement of reasoning
that agrees with observation, you will need to account for that fact.
As such, you have several options, chief among which a

1) Convince yourself that precession doesn't really exist, that it's
all a Newtonian conspiracy to keep the true astronomers down.

2) Find out why precession works the way it does and adjust
your line of reasoning to fit observation.

The choice is yours.
--
Dave


Suit yourself,I have been working with rotational dynamics and
specifically differential rotation for years and its geological
consequences and leave you with your stationary Earth 'convection
cells' notion and the viscous interior designed around that stationary
Earth notion.I think you and your empirical colleagues should be
proud of your 'convection cells' mechanism for crustal motion and you
would not like fluid dynamics of a rotating body.

Mind that 'tilt' now,do you hear.
  #15  
Old November 11th 08, 05:07 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro.amateur
Dave Typinski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 93
Default Know your gravity from a hole in the ground

oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 11, 2:45*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 10, 9:18*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 10, 8:10*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 10, 1:05*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 9, 5:59*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


On Nov 9, 7:19*am, Dave Typinski wrote:


The latest installment of Typinski procrastinates against anything
productive found me investigating gravitational acceleration within
the Earth.


It doesn't go quite as one might expect... not even in the right
direction. *Acceleration goes up and down through the crust, then
steadily increases through the bottom half of the mantle the closer
you get to that big ol' ball of nickel-iron down there.


http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/EarthGrav.htm


--
Dave


Good,you would not dare post this topic on sci.astro.amateur so *I
guess you have learned your lesson pretty quickly .


Since you insist...
--
Dave


Good,just as I thought and predictable.


Planetary shape is reliant on rotational dynamics and the specifics of
that dynamic,especially the rotation of the viscous composition below
the fractured surface crust.


Stellar dynamicists have been working with the correlation between
maximum Equatorial speed,spherical deviation between Equatorial and
polar diameters -


http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5604


The missing component is differential rotation as the latitudinal
shear bands differ between Equatorial and polar regions depending on
maximum Equatorial speed and reducing to zero speed at the poles
therefore there is a triumvirate of correlations for any rotating
celestial bodies with a viscous composition whether it it stellar
plasma or the internal viscous composition of the Earth,these intimate
correlations are maximum Equatorial speed,differential rotation and
spherical deviation.


The 40 Km spherical deviation of the Earth is due to differential
rotation between Equatorial and polar regions


snip


DIfferential rotation? *At what possible magnitude, a few microradians
per century?
--
Dave


Differential rotation is a consequence of fluid dynamics and
specifically that pf a rotating celestial object with a viscous
composition.This *rotational dynamic replaces stationary Earth and
thermally driven 'convection cells notion ' as the mechanism for
crustal motion by first accounting for the 40Km planetary spherical
deviation first and then uses the same mechanism to drive plate
tectonics.


snip


You claimed that the Earth exhibited differential rotation, which
implied that the crust exhibited this phenomenon, which is clearly not
the case in any reasonable fashion.


I have a very good reason to believe that your reasoning is typical
and that is why *I alone work with differential rotation as a
consequence of fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial body with a
viscous interior .The implications are really only for those who can
handle rotational dynamics and unfortunately I have yet to meet one
person who can apply the lessons learned from observed stellar
rotational dynamics and apply the generalized principles which link
maximum Equatorial speed with spherical deviation via differential
rotation.


*If instead you mean just the
fluid core, then it beats me. *I know squat about the dynamics of the
Earth's core, so your ideas may be as good as anyone else's for all I
know.


It is always nice to see a guy arrive with a gung-ho attitude in
sci.astro.amateur and then quickly dissolve into another empirical
clone and adopt a docile personality,


The trick is to know what one doesn't know. *One is gung ho about
things one knows one knows. *One defers on things one knows one
doesn't know.
--
Dave


Fair reply however the idea is not to conjure up whatever story is
needed to reach whatever conclusion is desired,the object is to enjoy
a specific arrangement of reasoning that fits observations


snip


Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. *The
only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2)
the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. *


If the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, there's no
precession. *Yet precession exists. *Does your specific arrangement of
reasoning agree with the observable fact that Earth's spin axis
precesses?


'Spin axis' indeed !,the topic of fluid dynamics of a rotating
celestial object with a viscous composition *and subsequently
differential rotation is not suited for people who believe in a
'rigid' axis *and despite the *sense that genuine people are
desperate * to discuss rotational dynamics applied to geodynamic
consequences,they cannot remove themselves from 'convection cells' to
accomplish the shift to rotation dynamics.


I am just getting used to the idea that posting graphics designed to
embarrass people into action actually make sense to them such as this
one -


http://www.yorku.ca/esse/veo/earth/image/1-3-2.JPG


Look,if you want to believe in a 'convection cell' dynamic then good
for you,I prefer rotational dynamics as the mechanism which generates
the 40 Km spherical deviation of the planet and *provides the
mechanism for the evolution and motion of the fractured crust via
differential rotation.The link is a huge advance and there are more
than a few who already know it.


You're flailing. *You're also failing to make your point and failing
to address the question of precession. *Precession is a testable
prediction of your line of reasoning.

Your line of reasoning fails the test.

Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. *The
only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2)
the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. *If
the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, as you claim,
there's no precession. *Yet precession exists.

Therefore, if you want to enjoy a specific arrangement of reasoning
that agrees with observation, you will need to account for that fact.
As such, you have several options, chief among which a

1) Convince yourself that precession doesn't really exist, that it's
all a Newtonian conspiracy to keep the true astronomers down.

2) Find out why precession works the way it does and adjust
your line of reasoning to fit observation.

The choice is yours.
--
Dave


Suit yourself,I have been working with rotational dynamics and
specifically differential rotation for years and its geological
consequences and leave you with your stationary Earth 'convection
cells' notion and the viscous interior designed around that stationary
Earth notion.I think you and your empirical colleagues should be
proud of your 'convection cells' mechanism for crustal motion and you
would not like fluid dynamics of a rotating body.

Mind that 'tilt' now,do you hear.


Option #1 it is. So noted.
--
Dave

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Know your analemma from a hole in the ground Dave Typinski[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 48 November 11th 08 06:43 PM
Black Hole Electron Concept Could Unify Gravity and Electromagn... www.freedomtofascism.com Misc 0 May 11th 08 03:40 PM
Black Hole Electron Concept Could Unify Gravity andElectromagn... G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 12 January 21st 08 05:33 PM
Kibble's ground-breaking 1961 paper on gravity as a local gauge theory Jack Sarfatti Astronomy Misc 0 September 3rd 06 05:35 AM
!!! Black Hole Gravity - speed of gravity Aunt Buffy Misc 366 August 7th 04 03:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.