Relativity question

Quoth the Jabberwocky:

oriel36 wrote:
To PHIL


You have the observed differential rotation in front of you in contrast
to a vague 'centrifugal force' which will never explain the geological
deviation from a perfect sphere and this is all you can manage.

If you cannot make sense of how the mechanism for the bulge and crustal
motion are the same ,it is not my fault .No doubt people will
eventually adopt the principle by the contemporary process of empirical
osmosis rather than just discussing the thing openly as I have
intended.

You lot certainly stand out for the simple fact that you ignore that
the Earth's shape is the largest known geological feature insofar as
the component plates which make up the crust,follow the shape of the
mantle and the uni-directional rotation bands which flow around the
planet in great plastic molten rivers.

Again,very little I can do for people who cannot think for themselves
even if I disapprove of the scavengers who will get their hands on this.

oriel36 wrote:

To PHIL

[snip another load of garbage and fed to the Shannonizer]

Output:

To PHIL You
as edited by
The Shannonizer Assault Team
To PHIL You lot certainly stand out for the Earth's shape of empirical
osmosis rather than just discussing the contemporary process of the
uni-directional rotation in contrast to a perfect sphere and crustal
motion are the mechanism for people will eventually adopt the planet in
contrast to a perfect sphere and the Earth's shape of how the shape is
the simple fact that you in contrast to a perfect sphere and the
observed differential rotation in front of how the uni-directional
rotation bands which flow around the contemporary process of the shape
of the bulge and this is the uni-directional rotation in contrast to a
vague centrifugal force which make sense of you cannot make up the
principle by the component plates which will never explain the
uni-directional rotation bands which make up the crust,follow the shape
of empirical osmosis rather than just discussing the mechanism for the
mantle and crustal motion are the uni-directional rotation in front of
how the same ,it is all you ignore that you in great plastic molten rivers.

Return to Shannonizer Home Page http://www.nightgarden.com/shannon.htm

The oriel36 text appears virtually invariant under this transformation.
Strongly suggests a bot or a net-kook. Probably the latter.

Regards,
Martin Brown

To Martin

Here you go Martin,take a good look at the differential rotation bands
which generate a deviation from a perfect sphere.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif

The Earth's crust whiuch is made up of component plates fits the
profile of the plastic-molten mantle hence the Equatorial bulge and the
correct mechanism for crustal motion.

I think you guys are plain cute with your convections cells and your
centrifugal force ,I really do !.There may be intelligent people who
can see the value of a meshing of astronomy with geology but not among
any of you.

oriel36 wrote:

To Martin

Here you go Martin,take a good look at the differential rotation bands
which generate a deviation from a perfect sphere.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif

You clearly do not have a clue. The sun rotates rather slowly and is a
very close approximation to a perfect sphere in shape. But it does not
rotate as a solid body (hardly surprising as it is a hot optically dense
plasma).

Solar oblateness was measured accurately by SOHO as ~8ppm
http://www.noao.edu/noao/noaonews/dec97/node2.html

By comparison Jupiter and Saturn which rotates much faster than the
Earth are visibly oblate even to casual inspection.

Regards,
Martin Brown

I just adore your tiny intellects as you approach things like the
Equatorial bulge.

http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Srotfram1.htm

I hope you detest differential rotation bands in the mantle as
generating the Earth's deviation from a perfect sphere and the
mechanism for crustal evolution and motion .The crust fits the profile
of the rotating mantle hence it is easy to graft in tectonic data
without too much diificulty.

I am counting that you are so intellectually poor that you will ignore
the largest known geological feature - the shape of the planet and that
you with remain with your stationaryEarth/convection cells mechanism
for crustal motion and half baked 'centrifugal force' explanations for
the bulge.Geologists will do far better without you.

Martin Brown wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

To Martin

Here you go Martin,take a good look at the differential rotation bands
which generate a deviation from a perfect sphere.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif

You clearly do not have a clue. The sun rotates rather slowly and is a
very close approximation to a perfect sphere in shape. But it does not
rotate as a solid body (hardly surprising as it is a hot optically dense
plasma).

Solar oblateness was measured accurately by SOHO as ~8ppm
http://www.noao.edu/noao/noaonews/dec97/node2.html

By comparison Jupiter and Saturn which rotates much faster than the
Earth are visibly oblate even to casual inspection.

Regards,
Martin Brown

The Earth's mantle does not rotate as a solid unit hence the deviation
from a perfect sphere.By adopting differential rotation bands in the
molten-plastic mantle,a number of different consequences emerge that
are enjoyable to work with or just simply enjoyable.

The largest known geological feature bevomes the shape of the
Earth,astronomy and geology mesh insofar as the mechanism for the
planetary geometric profile also conditions the movement of individual
plates and this is the major breakthrough.

There is really no dillemma for the broad outlines of the 'differential
rotation' mechanism can be grafted into existing tectonic motion
without undue fuss by replacing the 'convection cells/stationary
Earth' concept.


It may be ironic that the reason nobody cares to discuss the
association betweeen shape and the motion of component plates is that
I propose it ,if that were the case I will withdraw to facilitate this
exciting approach that already exists in part through observations
drawn from rotating celestial objects such as the Sun and the other
planets.The simple leap in determining that the mechanism for the
Earth's shape also conditions crustal motion and subsequently
Earthquakes and volcanoes makes it quite relevent in today's world .

"oriel36" wrote in news:1132397090.931275.172330
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Snipola
The Earth's mantle does not rotate as a solid unit hence the deviation
from a perfect sphere.

Correlation != causation.

Snipola of rest

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts

Skywise wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in news:1132397090.931275.172330
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Snipola
The Earth's mantle does not rotate as a solid unit hence the deviation
from a perfect sphere.

Correlation != causation.

Snipola of rest

Brian
--
The best thing yiou can do is go back to your harmless cataloguing
where no thinking is required.

Differential rotation bands in the mantle infered directly from other
rotating celestial objects do the job of profiling the Earth's Earth's
crust to a deviation from a perfect sphere and simultaneously provide
the mechanism for crustal motion.

I get to explain the largest known geological feature -the shape of the
planet,mesh astronomy with geology,provide a more accurate mechanism
for crustal evolution and motion which subsequently generates events
such as volcanoes and Earthquakes.

You and your colleagues make an exception of the Earth by ignoring the
rotational association between bulge and differential rotation bands
never mind making the further association to plate tectonics .It is
some feat to ignore the largest geological feature -the shape of the
planet but such is the lousy intellectual and intuitive standard that
exists.






http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts

"oriel36" wrote in
ps.com:


Skywise wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in
news:1132397090.931275.172330 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Snipola
The Earth's mantle does not rotate as a solid unit hence the
deviation from a perfect sphere.

Correlation != causation.

Snipola of rest

Brian
--
The best thing yiou can do is go back to your harmless cataloguing
where no thinking is required.

Differential rotation bands in the mantle infered directly from other
rotating celestial objects do the job of profiling the Earth's Earth's
crust to a deviation from a perfect sphere and simultaneously provide
the mechanism for crustal motion.

The Sun spins faster and has more dramatic 'differential rotation
bands' than the Earth. Yet its equatorial bulge is 327 times
less than the Earth's.

Snipola of reast

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts

To Skywise

The densities of the plastic-molten mantle can be adjusted to suit the
profile of the Earth's deviation from a perfect sphere and subsequently
the component plates that sit on top of this rotating mantle.The
observation of differential rotation on the Sun provides the basic
structure of a rotating celestial object,not need to point out the
difference between the solar bulge of the Sun and Earth as I suspect
that most intelligent people would already know that their repective
sizes, constituents and rotations are different but at least you made
the important leap which is half the story.The other half is replacing
cionvection cells with differential rotation bands in the Earth's
mantle,then you will know the real value of what is before you.


Again,you are just not up to appreciating the possibilities of getting
the shape of the plannets recognised as a geological feature and
subsequently the attractive proposition that the mechanism for the
profile of the planet is also the mechanism for crustal motion.

I am particularly fond of that insight but it can get rapidly complex
beyond the original outlines.This is why there is no desperate need to
find a mechanism for crustal motion and I enjoy geological
insights,apart from convection cells,without having to foist this new
way of thinking on anyone.