If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

 Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth
 Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

## Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

#1
May 28th 12, 07:56 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
 Nico V external usenet poster Posts: 5
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

Hi All,

A few nights ago I was thinking about a hypothetical theory. The full
explanation will be below, but as a short introduction I think Earth
doesn't only rotate around it's own axis of rotation and orbits the
sun, I'm guessing you also could derive a point in space where our
solar system rotates around, solely by studying the shapes of the
continents.

since I don't want to hostage your precious time.

Before I continue, I must tell you I'm not an astronomer, nor a
geologist, not even a hobbyist in both areas. And I'm also not a
mathematician.
I do know something about mechanical engineering, which involves
masses of inertia, centers of gravity and centrifugal forces.

Here comes a summary of what I thought of that night:

The point in space I try to prove is a point I like to call 'Dé
Blondine'.

First, I want you to imagine a balloon filled with water and tied with
a knot. An undeniable child's play. If you hold the balloon by it's
knot and you spin the balloon around your fingers, then the balloon
will soon have a triangular shape. One side of the triangle most far
away from your fingers and two sides pointing at your fingers. What
you do by spinning the balloon is creating a centrifugal force on the
water, then the center of gravity of the water will move to the part
of the balloon most far away from your fingers, also creating a moment
of inertia.
Second, I want you to dip the same balloon in water and then to rotate
the balloon the same way as described above. Then watch the water.
Most of the water wil start leaving the balloon where centrifugal
forces are highest and that's a point on the balloon furthest from

I always wondered why the continents weren't concentrated around the
equator. Because, when centrifugal forces due to the Earth's rotation
do it's work, it means that landmasses would be concentrated around
the equator and that's not reality.
This should work just as with the balloon dipped in water and being
rotated.

Then, if you consider the shapes of the continents, North-America,
South-America, Africa and Asia have more or less triangular shape.
Europe could fit in the triangle of Asia and Australia is what I think
forming a triangle.
So, the triangular continents all have it's center of gravity at the
part of the continent facing the north-pole.
NB: I didn't much take account of mountains, I just considered the
flat surface of the continents as seen on Google Maps and other maps,
also trying to keep in mind the projection-method used on those maps.
(spherish Earth -- flat rectangle map, perhaps Mercator is involved)

Now, if you link the triangular shape of the rotating balloon with the
triangular shape of the continents, then you could probably also
figure out that when you look up in the air at the center of gravity
of Antarctica, you should see 'Dé Blondine'.
I know that a spinning balloon doesn't look like a spinning Earth and
also, maybe I may not derive a point in space derived from triangular
shapes of the continents on earth, based on watching a spinning
balloon, but it seemed like an unlikely coincidence to me.
Also, I'm unable to comprehend what's the role of water when forming
continents.

So, why Antarctica? Antarctica is a very circular continent and seems
to be unifluenced by any centrifugal force. You have Earth's rotation,
highest at the equator an non-existing at the poles.
Then there might be a rotation around 'Dé Blondine', which results in
higher centrifugal force around north-pole than at south-pole, meaning
that Antarctica should push other continents to the north-pole and
also keeps it's circular shape. To be more specific: if the South-Pole
does not represent the center of gravity of Antarctica, then I'd like
to introduce the 'Southern Blondine'. The 'Northern Blondine' would be
positioned near the North-Pole and be on the same axis between 'Dé
Blondine' and the 'Southern Blondine', though being in-line with each
other.

The hypothesis continues, because if you overlook what I just wrote,
you could imagine that once the landmasses were concentrated up and
around Antarctica, or better: around the 'Southern Blondine'. And now
are they moving to be concentrated up and around the 'Northern
Blondine'.
Preservation is important, you prefer to put your food into the fridge
and freezer to keep the food longer fresh and tasty. Well, landmasses
should also preserve better in a cold region, like it once was around
the 'Southern Blondine'. In a later stage, even, when you consider the
ice from around the 'Northern Blondine', it should keep the moving
landmasses from moving to fast to the 'Northern Blondine'. And later
on ...
I could be speaking about intelligent design, but personally I
consider myself as not a very religious person, even the lesser
religion the better, due to cultural habits that's not always
possible. Zut.

The latitudinal partitioning of the landmasses is something I like to
describe as following: when a potter has finished a pot made of clay
and forgets the pot on the turntable, then the clay pot will fall
apart in different directions, almost chaotically.

How I'd like to prove this theory? The shape of the landmasses are
more or less clear to me, and what those shapes mean is also more or
less clear, but there must be something more. Other planets should
also have an axis that points to 'Dé Blondine'.
Perhaps the rings of Saturn reveal something pointing in that
direction.

I'm eager to know what you think of my theorie of 'Dé Blondine', does
it seem plausible and logical to you?

Best regards,

Ve. Ni.
#2
May 28th 12, 08:47 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
 Chris L Peterson external usenet poster Posts: 9,985
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:56:54 -0700 (PDT), Nico V
wrote:

A few nights ago I was thinking about a hypothetical theory. The full
explanation will be below, but as a short introduction I think Earth
doesn't only rotate around it's own axis of rotation and orbits the
sun, I'm guessing you also could derive a point in space where our
solar system rotates around, solely by studying the shapes of the
continents.

The next point of rotation of the Solar System is the galactic center,
unless you include some very slow precessional modes. Suffice to say,
the positions and shapes of the continents have changed radically over
the history of the Earth, and are continuing to do so- all well
explained by convective forces inside the Earth which are orders of
magnitude greater than any centripetal forces that are present from
orbital motions.
#3
May 30th 12, 08:18 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
 oriel36[_2_] external usenet poster Posts: 8,478
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

On May 28, 8:47*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:56:54 -0700 (PDT), Nico V
wrote:

A few nights ago I was thinking about a hypothetical theory. The full
explanation will be below, but as a short introduction I think Earth
doesn't only rotate around it's own axis of rotation and orbits the
sun, I'm guessing you also could derive a point in space where our
solar system rotates around, solely by studying the shapes of the
continents.

The next point of rotation of the Solar System is the galactic center,
unless you include some very slow precessional modes. Suffice to say,
the positions and shapes of the continents have changed radically over
the history of the Earth, and are continuing to do so- all well
explained by convective forces inside the Earth which are orders of
magnitude greater than any centripetal forces that are present from
orbital motions.

The 'convection cell' mechanism is possibly as bad as this guy's idea.

This is how I know that none of you act like astronomers,I mean I
grant you the excitement of the transit event outside the context of
its dynamics and that of the Earth,but in the matter of the fluid
dynamics of the Earth's interior and how it acts on the surface crust
in terms of crustal evolution/motion,I have yet to see another
astronomer work through the arguments.It actually would make the Earth
a singular exception among all rotating celestial bodies with viscous
compositions to exempt it flow zonal flow,differential rotation or an
uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes in
order to account for the clues left on the surface crust and the 26
mile spherical deviation between equatorial and polar diameters.

Astronomy is an exciting business every day rather than just these
rare events where people emerge from their slumber for a few days and
then drift off to sleep until the next photographic event.For a
genuine astronomer,a breaking dawn is just as spectacular and we go
dynamics,terrestrial effects or events such as transits where a moving
Earth and a moving Venus play out an orbital cycle with the central
Sun as a backdrop for a very short while.

#4
June 20th 12, 10:52 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
 Nico V external usenet poster Posts: 5
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

On 28 mei, 20:56, Nico V wrote:

Then, if you consider the shapes of the continents, North-America,
South-America, Africa and Asia have more or less triangular shape.
Europe could fit in the triangle of Asia and Australia is what I think
forming a triangle.
So, the triangular continents all have it's center of gravity at the
part of the continent facing the north-pole.
NB: I didn't much take account of mountains, I just considered the
flat surface of the continents as seen on Google Maps and other maps,
also trying to keep in mind the projection-method used on those maps.
(spherish Earth -- flat rectangle map, perhaps Mercator is involved)

What really bothers me is the fact of those triangular shapes of most
of the continents and why they all have the same orientation.
Nobody could explain that yet.
And that's why I thought some enormious centrifugal forces are
involved.
#5
June 21st 12, 06:51 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
 Dr J R Stockton[_166_] external usenet poster Posts: 2
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

In sci.astro.amateur message [email protected]
000vbz.googlegroups.com, Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:52:09, Nico V
posted:

What really bothers me is the fact of those triangular shapes of most
of the continents and why they all have the same orientation.
Nobody could explain that yet

Try a Google search for "continental drip" .

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036)
#6
June 22nd 12, 07:29 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
 oriel36[_2_] external usenet poster Posts: 8,478
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

On Jun 21, 6:51*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.astro.amateur message [email protected]
000vbz.googlegroups.com, Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:52:09, Nico V
posted:

What really bothers me is the fact of those triangular shapes of most
of the continents and why they all have the same orientation.
Nobody could explain that yet

Try a Google search for * "continental drip" * .

That should be continental drift as the planet's geological evolution
relies heavily on the difference between continental crust and oceanic
crust where the latter comes under the influence of the rotating fluid
interior.Trying to explain the shape of the continents using
centrifugal forces misses the point of the evolution of crust through
spreading centers and especially the Mid Atlantic Ridge which is a
testament to the lag/advance mechanism of differential rotation - a
mechanism known to all astronomers who look at rotating celestial
objects with exposed viscous compositions.

Planetary shape and the 26 mile difference between equatorial and
polar diameters fits neatly in with an uneven rotational gradient by
virtue of planetary comparisons where Venus has no tectonic activity
beyond volcanic while it has no appreciable spherical deviation due to
residual rotation.Turn what way you will,in order to consider a
rotational mechanism which drives the continental crust apart,it must
dovetail with planetary shape and that requires the core fact that the
Earth turns 15 degrees/1037.5 miles at the equator and a full 24901
mile circumference in 24 hours.

It is something else to have worldwide geology departments who cannot
operate with the most fundamental fact of all in that the Earth is
round,rotating and has specific values attached.I have seen them act
like petty thieves in Wikipedia in trying to cobble together a
rotational mechanism like Frankenstein's monster with bits patched
together from here and there instead of the ease of reasoning which
combines plate tectonics with planetary shape using an already
observed feature of rotating fluid dynamics.

--
*(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. * Turnpike v6.05 * MIME.
* *Web *http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
*Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
*Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036)

#7
July 2nd 12, 06:52 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
 Nico V external usenet poster Posts: 5
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

Op vrijdag 22 juni 2012 08:29:53 UTC+2 schreef oriel36 het volgende:
On Jun 21, 6:51*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.astro.amateur message [email protected]
000vbz.googlegroups.com, Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:52:09, Nico V
posted:

What really bothers me is the fact of those triangular shapes of most
of the continents and why they all have the same orientation.
Nobody could explain that yet

Try a Google search for * "continental drip" * .

That should be continental drift as the planet's geological evolution
relies heavily on the difference between continental crust and oceanic
crust where the latter comes under the influence of the rotating fluid
interior.Trying to explain the shape of the continents using
centrifugal forces misses the point of the evolution of crust through
spreading centers and especially the Mid Atlantic Ridge which is a
testament to the lag/advance mechanism of differential rotation - a
mechanism known to all astronomers who look at rotating celestial
objects with exposed viscous compositions.

Planetary shape and the 26 mile difference between equatorial and
polar diameters fits neatly in with an uneven rotational gradient by
virtue of planetary comparisons where Venus has no tectonic activity
beyond volcanic while it has no appreciable spherical deviation due to
residual rotation.Turn what way you will,in order to consider a
rotational mechanism which drives the continental crust apart,it must
dovetail with planetary shape and that requires the core fact that the
Earth turns 15 degrees/1037.5 miles at the equator and a full 24901
mile circumference in 24 hours.

It is something else to have worldwide geology departments who cannot
operate with the most fundamental fact of all in that the Earth is
round,rotating and has specific values attached.I have seen them act
like petty thieves in Wikipedia in trying to cobble together a
rotational mechanism like Frankenstein's monster with bits patched
together from here and there instead of the ease of reasoning which
combines plate tectonics with planetary shape using an already
observed feature of rotating fluid dynamics.

--
*(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. * Turnpike v6.05 * MIME.
* *Web *http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
*Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
*Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036)

I really do support continental drift.
And I only suggest the continents drifted originally away from antarctica.

About the triangular shapes and the identical orientations: the density of earth is higher than water and the outside of a mass influenced by a centrifugal force always contains the heaviest particles.

You also have to consider the stability of Earth's rotation.
Too much heavy particles, like earth, around the equator on one side of Earth, let's say for example Africa, and perhaps it then becomes possible that Earth drift's out of it's orbit around the Sun, just because of an unstable rotation.
I know a system always drifts towards a stable condition.
#8
July 2nd 12, 07:21 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
 Chris L Peterson external usenet poster Posts: 9,985
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:52:09 -0700 (PDT), Nico V
wrote:

About the triangular shapes and the identical orientations: the density of earth is higher than water and the outside of a mass influenced by a centrifugal force always contains the heaviest particles.

That is not true. You need to consider all the forces that a particle
is subject to. In the case of Earth, the effect of gravity is much
greater than the effect of centrifugal force, which is why we have an
iron core and a silicate crust, and not the other way around.

You also have to consider the stability of Earth's rotation.
Too much heavy particles, like earth, around the equator on one side of Earth, let's say for example Africa, and perhaps it then becomes possible that Earth drift's out of it's orbit around the Sun, just because of an unstable rotation.

A lopsided body will not drift out of its solar orbit.

I know a system always drifts towards a stable condition.

Not so. Systems become unstable under all kinds of conditions. In the
absence of external inputs, systems tend towards the lowest energy
state, which is not necessarily stable, or may not be reached without
becoming unstable first.
#9
July 2nd 12, 07:48 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
 oriel36[_2_] external usenet poster Posts: 8,478
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

On Jul 2, 8:21*pm, Chris L Peterson

The planet's geological circumference is 24 901 miles at the equator
which makes 15 degrees of geographical separation equal to 1037.5
miles.Come back to the thread when you learn that the equatorial Earth
turns at a rate of 15 degrees/1037.5 miles an hour and a full
circumference in 24 hours.

You might even have a chance to comprehend the uneven rotational
gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes in the rotating fluid
interior which is responsible for the 26 mile spherical deviation
between equatorial and polar diameters and consequently the lag/
advance mechanism for crustal generation off the Mid Atlantic Ridge.

An astronomer takes the observation that rotating celestial bodies
with exposed viscous compositions display differential rotation hence
to exempt the Earth from this feature takes quite an effort.The joys
of astronomy reside in piecing together cause and effect hence the
neat meshing of the Earth's magnetic field,spherical deviation and
plate tectonics using a single mechanism as the highest probability of
success.

What can be said for a geological community that can't comprehend the
primary geological fact of a round and rotating Earth with values
attached - forget 'climate change',this is where the real issues
exist.

#10
July 3rd 12, 07:28 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
 Dr J R Stockton[_168_] external usenet poster Posts: 3
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

Op vrijdag 22 juni 2012 08:29:53 UTC+2 schreef oriel36 het volgende:
On Jun 21, 6:51*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.astro.amateur message [email protected]
000vbz.googlegroups.com, Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:52:09, Nico V
posted:

What really bothers me is the fact of those triangular shapes of most
of the continents and why they all have the same orientation.
Nobody could explain that yet

Try a Google search for * "continental drip" * .

That should be continental drift

No. I meant "drip". Such a search conclusively refutes "Nobody could
explain that yet". The correctness of the explanation is irrelevant.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036)

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Space Science     Space Science Misc     News     Space Shuttle     Space Station     Science     Technology     Policy     History Astronomy and Astrophysics     Astronomy Misc     Amateur Astronomy     CCD Imaging     Research     FITS     Satellites     Hubble     SETI Others     Astro Pictures     Solar     UK Astronomy     Misc About SpaceBanter     About this forum

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth Nico V Astronomy Misc 0 May 28th 12 07:56 PM Spinning creates Inertia,and Inertia is Used by nature to BalanceGrav G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 1 December 3rd 06 06:25 AM Early Earth Likely Had Continents And Was Habitable, Says New Study (Forwarded) Nog Policy 5 November 21st 05 10:40 PM Early Earth Likely Had Continents And Was Habitable, Says New Study(Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 November 18th 05 04:15 AM Early Earth Likely Had Continents And Was Habitable, Says New Study(Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 November 18th 05 03:47 AM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:45 AM.