|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
On Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:07:35 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 11:30:45 -0800, "oriel36" wrote: Centrifugal forces,yeah,yeah yeah,this has been the story for hundreds of years and it will tell you why the Earth and all rotating celestial objects are spheres but it is useless to explain deviations from a perfect sphere. Centrifugal forces do not explain why the planets are spheres (rotating or not). They are spherical because of gravity. Centrifugal force explains why rotating spheres are oblate. Perhaps you are the one who is special for it takes quite an effort to miss the shape of the Earth as a geological feature.Unless you live in a cave you would know that the Earth's fractured crust is composed of plates that are subject to rotational forces in the plastic-molten mantle.As all rotating celestial objects display both differential rotation and a bulge,it takes quite a special person to ignore it. Rotating celestial objects that are solid, e.g. the Moon or Mars, do not display differential rotation, just equatorial bulges. Almost certainly, there is some differential rotation in the plastic interior of the Earth (I don't know that anyone is denying this, as you seem to suggest). The point is that convection currents in the mantle- which have been observed experimentally- explain very nicely the movement and evolution of tectonic plates. If that motion resulted from differential rotation as you suggest, you would expect fault lines and plate boundaries to lie preferentially on east-west axes, which they do not. You would also expect plates on opposite sides of the equator to be rotating, and in opposite directions. But the directions that plates rotate isn't correlated with their hemisphere. It is not my fault that everyone is intent in shooting themselves in the foot with the 'scientific method' when simple intution will do. Terrible problem there, what with rational methodology corrupting intuition. g I think my own intuition is pretty good; it has generally served me well. But boy, on occasion it has really led me down the wrong path! (And I doubt there is a scientist alive who wouldn't say the same.) If I trusted only my intuition, and valued it higher than empirical evidence, I'd sure have a strange world view by now. Hmmm... sound like anyone you know? _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com Here is what the Wikipedia page on Plate tectonics looked like back in 2005 when I was demonstrating how to draw from observations of rotating celestial objects with exposed fluid compositions and apply the lessons to the Earth rotating fluid interior and from there to clues left on the surface crust in terms of crustal evolution and motion. - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...oldid=29688503 Instead of developing the 100% observational certainty that a rotating celestial fluid object does not rotate as a single unit with an even rotational gradient between equator and poles they threw every assertion they could find at rotation and ignored the neat scheme which binds the spherical deviation of the planet with evolutionary geology using a common mechanism.So this is how the article looks like today with 'rotation' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics Back in 2005 you were referring to differential rotation between cores which amounts to a misinterpretation of data as the productive view of differential rotation is the uneven rotational gradient between equator and poles which generates the global feature of the Mid Atlantic Ridge and destroys crust at the other side of the boundary as new oceanic crust forces the old crust down into the rotating fluid interior of the planet and its erosion effect. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 5:40:01 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
Here is what the Wikipedia page on Plate tectonics looked like back in 2005 when I was demonstrating how to draw from observations of rotating celestial objects with exposed fluid compositions and apply the lessons to the Earth rotating fluid interior and from there to clues left on the surface crust in terms of crustal evolution and motion. - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...oldid=29688503 Instead of developing the 100% observational certainty that a rotating celestial fluid object does not rotate as a single unit with an even rotational gradient between equator and poles they threw every assertion they could find at rotation and ignored the neat scheme which binds the spherical deviation of the planet with evolutionary geology using a common mechanism.So this is how the article looks like today with 'rotation' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics Back in 2005 you were referring to differential rotation between cores which amounts to a misinterpretation of data as the productive view of differential rotation is the uneven rotational gradient between equator and poles which generates the global feature of the Mid Atlantic Ridge and destroys crust at the other side of the boundary as new oceanic crust forces the old crust down into the rotating fluid interior of the planet and its erosion effect. The new Wiki page does not contain the words 'differential' or 'gradient', and does not support your lonely position at all. Why did you even bother to write this? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
On Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:07:35 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 11:30:45 -0800, "oriel36" wrote: Centrifugal forces,yeah,yeah yeah,this has been the story for hundreds of years and it will tell you why the Earth and all rotating celestial objects are spheres but it is useless to explain deviations from a perfect sphere. Centrifugal forces do not explain why the planets are spheres (rotating or not). They are spherical because of gravity. Centrifugal force explains why rotating spheres are oblate. Perhaps you are the one who is special for it takes quite an effort to miss the shape of the Earth as a geological feature.Unless you live in a cave you would know that the Earth's fractured crust is composed of plates that are subject to rotational forces in the plastic-molten mantle.As all rotating celestial objects display both differential rotation and a bulge,it takes quite a special person to ignore it. Rotating celestial objects that are solid, e.g. the Moon or Mars, do not display differential rotation, just equatorial bulges. Almost certainly, there is some differential rotation in the plastic interior of the Earth (I don't know that anyone is denying this, as you seem to suggest). The point is that convection currents in the mantle- which have been observed experimentally- explain very nicely the movement and evolution of tectonic plates. If that motion resulted from differential rotation as you suggest, you would expect fault lines and plate boundaries to lie preferentially on east-west axes, which they do not. You would also expect plates on opposite sides of the equator to be rotating, and in opposite directions. But the directions that plates rotate isn't correlated with their hemisphere. It is not my fault that everyone is intent in shooting themselves in the foot with the 'scientific method' when simple intution will do. Terrible problem there, what with rational methodology corrupting intuition. g I think my own intuition is pretty good; it has generally served me well. But boy, on occasion it has really led me down the wrong path! (And I doubt there is a scientist alive who wouldn't say the same.) If I trusted only my intuition, and valued it higher than empirical evidence, I'd sure have a strange world view by now. Hmmm... sound like anyone you know? _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com In 2005 when that post was published linking the spherical deviation between equatorial and polar diameters with plate tectonics using the common mechanism of an uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes (differential rotation) there wasn't a sign of a rotational mechanism being discussed anywhere - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...oldid=29688503 About ten years later and because empiricists like Peterson here are not good enough to comprehend the neat reasoning that connects planetary shape and evolutionary geology together using already observed differential rotation in all rotating celestial objects with exposed viscous compositions,they threw every assertion they could find at rotation so the Wiki article looks like this now with 'rotation' added - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics So,differential rotation across latitudes which first appeared here in respect to the 26 mile spherical deviation of our planet across the same latitudes and the mechanism for crustal evolution and motion but is still not being discussed properly. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
On Friday, January 24, 2014 3:16:44 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:
On Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:07:35 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote: On 16 Nov 2005 11:30:45 -0800, "oriel36" wrote: Centrifugal forces,yeah,yeah yeah,this has been the story for hundreds of years and it will tell you why the Earth and all rotating celestial objects are spheres but it is useless to explain deviations from a perfect sphere. Centrifugal forces do not explain why the planets are spheres (rotating or not). They are spherical because of gravity. Centrifugal force explains why rotating spheres are oblate. Perhaps you are the one who is special for it takes quite an effort to miss the shape of the Earth as a geological feature.Unless you live in a cave you would know that the Earth's fractured crust is composed of plates that are subject to rotational forces in the plastic-molten mantle.As all rotating celestial objects display both differential rotation and a bulge,it takes quite a special person to ignore it. Rotating celestial objects that are solid, e.g. the Moon or Mars, do not display differential rotation, just equatorial bulges. Almost certainly, there is some differential rotation in the plastic interior of the Earth (I don't know that anyone is denying this, as you seem to suggest). The point is that convection currents in the mantle- which have been observed experimentally- explain very nicely the movement and evolution of tectonic plates. If that motion resulted from differential rotation as you suggest, you would expect fault lines and plate boundaries to lie preferentially on east-west axes, which they do not. You would also expect plates on opposite sides of the equator to be rotating, and in opposite directions. But the directions that plates rotate isn't correlated with their hemisphere. It is not my fault that everyone is intent in shooting themselves in the foot with the 'scientific method' when simple intution will do. Terrible problem there, what with rational methodology corrupting intuition. g I think my own intuition is pretty good; it has generally served me well. But boy, on occasion it has really led me down the wrong path! (And I doubt there is a scientist alive who wouldn't say the same.) If I trusted only my intuition, and valued it higher than empirical evidence, I'd sure have a strange world view by now. Hmmm... sound like anyone you know? _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com In 2005 when that post was published linking the spherical deviation between equatorial and polar diameters with plate tectonics using the common mechanism of an uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes (differential rotation) there wasn't a sign of a rotational mechanism being discussed anywhere - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...oldid=29688503 About ten years later and because empiricists like Peterson here are not good enough to comprehend the neat reasoning that connects planetary shape and evolutionary geology together using already observed differential rotation in all rotating celestial objects with exposed viscous compositions,they threw every assertion they could find at rotation so the Wiki article looks like this now with 'rotation' added - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics So,differential rotation across latitudes which first appeared here in respect to the 26 mile spherical deviation of our planet across the same latitudes and the mechanism for crustal evolution and motion but is still not being discussed properly. That page STILL does not contain the word 'differential' and the word 'gradient' only appears once (in reference to the atmosphere), and this is because there is no differential rotation across latitudes, and you cannot show that it exists. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:09:37 AM UTC, palsing wrote:
That page STILL does not contain the word 'differential' and the word 'gradient' only appears once (in reference to the atmosphere), and this is because there is no differential rotation across latitudes, and you cannot show that it exists. As usual you miss the point entirely. Even though differential rotation across latitudes is seen in all rotating celestial objects with exposed viscous compositions,we look for clues on the Earth thin fractured crust for visible signatures of differential rotation occurring in the fluid in contact with and influencing the evolution of the surface crust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fracturezone.svg http://www.mantleplumes.org/images/TristanFig1_600.gif The lag/advance mechanism of differential rotation creating a symmetrical generation of crust either side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge is one such invaluable clue however the really neat part is the 26 mile spherical deviation which meshes with this internal dynamical feature. The recent Wiki addition is the sound of the usual incompetence,people not comfortable with the insight as it was originally proposed a decade ago in outlines or in a draft that looks at planetary shape and plate tectonics using a common mechanism. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
On Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:07:35 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 11:30:45 -0800, "oriel36" wrote: Centrifugal forces,yeah,yeah yeah,this has been the story for hundreds of years and it will tell you why the Earth and all rotating celestial objects are spheres but it is useless to explain deviations from a perfect sphere. Centrifugal forces do not explain why the planets are spheres (rotating or not). They are spherical because of gravity. Centrifugal force explains why rotating spheres are oblate. Perhaps you are the one who is special for it takes quite an effort to miss the shape of the Earth as a geological feature.Unless you live in a cave you would know that the Earth's fractured crust is composed of plates that are subject to rotational forces in the plastic-molten mantle.As all rotating celestial objects display both differential rotation and a bulge,it takes quite a special person to ignore it. Rotating celestial objects that are solid, e.g. the Moon or Mars, do not display differential rotation, just equatorial bulges. Almost certainly, there is some differential rotation in the plastic interior of the Earth (I don't know that anyone is denying this, as you seem to suggest). The point is that convection currents in the mantle- which have been observed experimentally- explain very nicely the movement and evolution of tectonic plates. If that motion resulted from differential rotation as you suggest, you would expect fault lines and plate boundaries to lie preferentially on east-west axes, which they do not. You would also expect plates on opposite sides of the equator to be rotating, and in opposite directions. But the directions that plates rotate isn't correlated with their hemisphere. It is not my fault that everyone is intent in shooting themselves in the foot with the 'scientific method' when simple intution will do. Terrible problem there, what with rational methodology corrupting intuition. g I think my own intuition is pretty good; it has generally served me well. But boy, on occasion it has really led me down the wrong path! (And I doubt there is a scientist alive who wouldn't say the same.) If I trusted only my intuition, and valued it higher than empirical evidence, I'd sure have a strange world view by now. Hmmm... sound like anyone you know? _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com Just a quick reminder that in 2005 when the uneven rotational gradient between Equatorial and Polar latitudes was being presented for the first time linking the spherical deviation of the planet with plate tectonics,there was no discussion among 'mainstream' empiricists ,including you, on a rotational mechanism. You have the usual empirical characteristic of not only failing to grasp the relevance but when it is being demonstrated the empiricists go into an assertion binge as what happened with rotation and plate tectonics. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...oldid=29688503 The idea of a transition phase in stellar evolution is a lot slower coming but there is a possibility that when you look out at our parent star you may be looking at the factory for the elements in your body and all other visible things with the transition event being a supernova. The thing about empiricists is that they botch clear reasoning even if that reasoning is in outlines and only speculative in nature. I am not happy to see them lunge at rotation and plate tectonics without taking into account a normal observation in watching the behavior of rotating viscous compositions so although you are keen to speculate on these exoplanets,when our close by planetary neighbors offer up real information you suddenly don't know what I am saying to this forum. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
On Wednesday, November 16, 2005 at 8:07:35 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 11:30:45 -0800, "oriel36" wrote: Perhaps you are the one who is special for it takes quite an effort to miss the shape of the Earth as a geological feature.Unless you live in a cave you would know that the Earth's fractured crust is composed of plates that are subject to rotational forces in the plastic-molten mantle.As all rotating celestial objects display both differential rotation and a bulge,it takes quite a special person to ignore it. Rotating celestial objects that are solid, e.g. the Moon or Mars, do not display differential rotation, just equatorial bulges. Almost certainly, there is some differential rotation in the plastic interior of the Earth (I don't know that anyone is denying this, as you seem to suggest). The point is that convection currents in the mantle- which have been observed experimentally- explain very nicely the movement and evolution of tectonic plates. If that motion resulted from differential rotation as you suggest, you would expect fault lines and plate boundaries to lie preferentially on east-west axes, which they do not. You would also expect plates on opposite sides of the equator to be rotating, and in opposite directions. But the directions that plates rotate isn't correlated with their hemisphere. Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com People mistake ignorance for neglect, in this case you poor unfortunate missed that all planets with fluid compositions display differential rotation across latitudes. To be fair, they have since tried to insert a rotational mechanism for plate tectonics but the faculties which are so dormant in empirical minds ,like yours, they can handle basic associations even when they unavoidable. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Relativity question
I sometimes come back to this 13 year old thread as it contains a lot of elements that were developed from scratch linking plate tectonics and its effects, the spherical deviation of the planet, electromagnetic signatures and other facets all connected via fluid dynamics.
I understand that most would be cheerleaders for articles that surface every now again but these things were new and remain that way without any significant advancement. I followed the rise of rotational influences on plate tectonics and it is a mess despite the appearance that some progress is being made but it will always come back to the differential rotation across latitudes as the mechanism behind so much evolution of the surface crust. My goodness, how things change over the years while some other things remain the same. It wasn't a matter of getting it right but that one differential rotation mechanism serves two purposes in linking geological evolution with planetary shape so it makes no sense to exempt our home planet from principles that are observed on all rotating celestial objects with fluid compositions. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Putting relativity to the test, NASA's Gravity Probe B experimentis one step away from revealing if Einstein was right (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 7th 05 05:09 AM |
GravityShieldingUpdates1.1 | Stan Byers | Research | 3 | March 23rd 05 01:28 PM |
A Question For Those Who Truly Understand The Theory of Relativity (Was: Einstein's GR as a Gauge Theory and Shipov's Torsion Field) | Larry Hammick | Astronomy Misc | 1 | February 26th 05 02:22 AM |
Foundations of General Relativity, Torsion & Zero Point Energy | Jack Sarfatti | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 7th 04 04:32 AM |
Beginner question about gravity | Ed L. | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | November 12th 03 04:19 AM |