Fluid dynamics

http://www.the-science-site.com/imag...ntic-ridge.jpg

Astronomy covers multiple relationships between planetary dynamics and terrestrial sciences,some of which are immediate such as daily and seasonal temperature fluctuation, tidal fluctuations and things like that. As most researchers still rely heavily on what they learned in high school they can't make the adjustments to new perspectives ,even dramatic ones which appeared here recently.

The area of geology needs a huge overhaul and especially when the image above is inspected more carefully for one very specific reason. All rotating fluid celestial objects display an uneven gradient between Equator and polar latitudes so exempting the Earth's rotating fluid interior from this almost celestial certainty (differential rotation) goes way beyond an oversight..

The geologists are buried in citation warfare in a most unimaginative way so that even if there are genuine areas of research they attach a worthless 'hotspot' stationary Earth view of mantle convection and are unable to take the widest possible view with differential rotation -

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-eih040116.php

Although now a decade old I thought the attraction to mesh the planet's 26 mile spherical deviation with crustal evolution/motion using differential rotation would spur a closer inspection of the dynamics beneath the surface crust. It is not just the orientation, the symmetrical generation of crust either side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge but the symmetrical 'S' shape which splits at the Equator that presents itself as clues to the internal mechanism.

Then there is Venus which is roughly the size of the Earth, no spherical deviation to speak of, only volcanic activity and no plate tectonics as a reflection of a residual surface rotation.

Citation stuff must be great for academics just making it through their day but it generates a lot of heat and no light. It has all the hallmarks of people walking aimlessly through halls and none of the determination and adventure that normally accompanies genuine innovations which generate excitement and have little to do with lifestyles and reputations. It is also why an unhealthy astronomy trickles down into terrestrial sciences for had astronomers pointed out that it is close to impossible to exempt the fluid rotating Earth from differential rotation, these foolish geologists wouldn't be talking about stationary Earth 'hotspots'.

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 7:09:24 PM UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:

The area of geology needs a huge overhaul

Yo, sci.geo.geology! Crackpot incoming!

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:20:51 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 7:09:24 PM UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:

The area of geology needs a huge overhaul

Yo, sci.geo.geology! Crackpot incoming!

You are fine, just another one in a long line who eventually descend into stock phrases so no shame there.

I am sure many people have already realized that it is impossible to explain a sunrise without a rotation behind it and as there are two day/night cycles present with special attention given to the sunrise at the South pole on the Equinox and only on the Equinox,they should enjoy applying lessons learned from the Sun coming into view each morning and then transplanting it to the polar latitude as a separate rotation-

https://antarcticarctic.files.wordpr...sept21_hdr.jpg

Likewise how to explain the spherical deviation of the planet and plate tectonics simultaneously using a common mechanism even if it is speculative whereas the explanation for dual day/night cycles using dual surface rotations is not. The most likely mechanism is one already observed in the form of an uneven rotational gradient across latitudes known as differential rotation however there is simply a lack of reasonable astronomers who can point out that all rotating celestial objects with viscous compositions display this trait. No need to exempt the Earth's fluid interior from this feature as it answers more than a few major clues in terms of the shape of the Earth and its impact on the surface crust.

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:47:23 PM UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:

I am sure many people have already realized that it is impossible to explain a sunrise without a rotation behind it

Yes, like sunrise on the Moon. Very mysterious if the Moon is not rotating.

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:11:55 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:47:23 PM UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:

I am sure many people have already realized that it is impossible to explain a sunrise without a rotation behind it

Yes, like sunrise on the Moon. Very mysterious if the Moon is not rotating.

The moon is not a planet and the lunar day/night cycle is dependent on its orbital motion around the Earth for how else to explain the rare solar eclipse as lunar midnight using the central Earth as a foundation for designating lunar noon (full moon) when the moon is furthest from the Sun or lunar midnight (new moon) when the moon is closest to the Sun in its monthly orbit -

http://en.es-static.us/upl/2015/03/e...-2012-NASA.jpg

In a way I am fortunate as the theorists are simply uninterested in the relationship between celestial observations and their causes so I get a free run in a forum like this when it comes to the dual surface rotations responsible for the planetary day/night cycles. Sometimes it takes years to find just the right arguments to see an insight through and in this case there would be some sort of individual pride in recognizing the two types of sunrises which reflect the daily and orbital motions of the planet .

There are many gorgeous images of the Sun coming into view each day as a location turns daily and anyone can take a similar image -

http://cdn-img.fimfiction.net/story/...30-137325-full

On the other hand the image of polar sunrise on Antarctica is rare insofar as it happens once a year at the September Equinox -

https://antarcticarctic.files.wordpr...sept21_hdr.jpg

The very act of recognizing two distinct types of sunrise should shatter the unhealthy celestial sphere mindset that many have found themselves in but generally with the Sun coming into view in two distinct ways, the insight is meant to provide a new point of departure for looking at the Earth's motions.

On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 00:11:55 UTC+2, wrote:

Yes, like sunrise on the Moon. Very mysterious if the Moon is not rotating.

You appear to be having a one-sided conversation with a blind, astro thesaurus gob****e.

Are you aware of this and how can you possibly explain yourself? ;-)

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 5:58:09 PM UTC+1, Chris.B wrote:
You appear to be having a one-sided conversation with a blind, astro thesaurus gob****e.

Are you aware of this and how can you possibly explain yourself? ;-)

Thank you, Chris, yes, I am aware that Gerald is a crackpot.

He's not as funny as the classic Usenet crackpots of old - Ludwig Plutonium, John_-_Winston, but still, he is funny in his own little way.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 6:21:57 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 5:58:09 PM UTC+1, Chris.B wrote:
You appear to be having a one-sided conversation with a blind, astro thesaurus gob****e.

Are you aware of this and how can you possibly explain yourself? ;-)

Thank you, Chris, yes, I am aware that Gerald is a crackpot.

He's not as funny as the classic Usenet crackpots of old - Ludwig Plutonium, John_-_Winston, but still, he is funny in his own little way.

Again, you are fine as are so many others who eventually find themselves in noisebox territory and their childish histrionics. The technical issues are not for attention seekers but rather those who enjoy challenges that observations provide and descending to a level where I have to explain the lunar day/night cycle from its orbital motion of the Earth is not my idea of satisfaction.

If you find yourself thanking what is effectively intellectual tinsel paper then that says more about you than it does me and besides ,your whole descent was inevitable. Unless you want to spray graffiti on my postings like so many others have done then be my guest, this is the unmoderated Usenet after all.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 6:55:34 PM UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:
Unless you want to spray graffiti on my postings like so many others have done then be my guest, this is the unmoderated Usenet after all.

You know very well that no-one has the patience to respond to all your Usenet posts - practically no-one reads them, half the people who do are crackpots themselves, and you ignore criticism anyhow, it would be entirely wasted effort if you weren't funny.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 9:36:01 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 6:55:34 PM UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:
Unless you want to spray graffiti on my postings like so many others have done then be my guest, this is the unmoderated Usenet after all.

You know very well that no-one has the patience to respond to all your Usenet posts - practically no-one reads them, half the people who do are crackpots themselves, and you ignore criticism anyhow, it would be entirely wasted effort if you weren't funny.

http://cdn-img.fimfiction.net/story/...30-137325-full

https://antarcticarctic.files.wordpr...sept21_hdr.jpg

Two types of sunrises that genuine people will love and open to those with an appreciation that the Sun comes into view for one reason alone whether it is tomorrow morning or separately on the Equinoxes at the North and South poles.

It is one of those insights that grow on people when they realize they didn't give it much consideration before and it changes the way the planet's motions relate to terrestrial sciences.

This is for men and not screaming heads who hate everything and love nothing, not even a polar dawn and its cause. There is no imperative to grow up or accept it, the two observations side by side represent two gorgeous events beloved of most people who take the time out to notice a dawn or twilight..