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

Relativity question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old July 2nd 13, 01:40 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default 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  
Old July 2nd 13, 05:21 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default 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  
Old January 25th 14, 12:16 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default 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  
Old January 25th 14, 02:09 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default 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  
Old January 25th 14, 09:51 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default 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  
Old May 9th 14, 06:10 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default 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  
Old June 2nd 17, 10:23 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default 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  
Old January 4th 18, 08:37 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default 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

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
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 02:28 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 03:22 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 05:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:55 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.