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

A wikipedia detour



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 30th 10, 01:18 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default A wikipedia detour

It should be accepted that all rotating celestial bodies with viscous
compositions display some form of differential rotation and indeed it
is a matter of course for those who affirm it by observation whether
it is the plasma seen in rotating stars,gas giants with the high
probability that those planets with fluid compositions beneath a
relatively thin crust have similar rotational traits.The Wikipedia
article on plate tectonics looks like it was written by a student who
wants recognition for doing his homework as it is less an article than
it is a blizzard of citations however it is the mechanism for crustal
motion and evolution that deserves the most attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

Of course the Wiki gestapo throw around the assertion that
differential rotation applied to the Earth is original research while
at the same time exempting the rotating fluid interior of the Earth
from generalized rules governing the rotation of viscous material as
it disturbs the stationary Earth 'convection cells' ideology they have
placed their hope in having speculated on a viscosity to suit that
regrettable stab at the internal mechanism for crustal motion .The
highest probability for productive investigation of crustal evolution/
motion has to be rotational dynamics based on the astronomical point
of fact that no rotating celestial object with a viscous composition
has been observed that exempts an uneven rotational gradient between
equatorial and polar latitudes.

No doubt the magnification guys will object to this meshing of
astronomy with geology but this is astronomy regardless and the fact
that the geologists are running around like headless chickens with a
stationary Earth 'convection cells' and a very lethargic viscous
composition organized around that unfortunate idea flies in the face
of the viscosity that pours out of every fracture and volcanic
eruption -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb0eB...eature=related

It is highly likely that the planetary spherical deviation and crustal
evolution/motion can be linked using a common rotational mechanism
observed in all rotating viscous forms and the Earth fluid interior is
no exception from differential rotation with a viscosity to suit.


  #2  
Old October 31st 10, 06:14 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur,alt.total-loser
Skywise
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 318
Default A wikipedia detour

I was terribly bored and took the time to read the discussion.

It's a very simple issue and you seem dumb as a brick regarding
it.

If what you propose is NOT original research, then you will have
references to verifiable sources that also discuss what you
propose.

The wikipedia moderators are simply enforcing the rules of the
system that require all content to be referenced to verifiable
sources. They've asked that you supply these references.

It seems you are the one who's being obstinate and obtuse.

I must be terribly bored again, since I took the time to reply
to your drivel.

Have a nice day!!!!

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?
  #3  
Old October 31st 10, 07:22 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default A wikipedia detour

On Oct 31, 5:14*am, Skywise wrote:
I was terribly bored and took the time to read the discussion.

It's a very simple issue and you seem dumb as a brick regarding
it.

If what you propose is NOT original research, then you will have
references to verifiable sources that also discuss what you
propose.

The wikipedia moderators are simply enforcing the rules of the
system that require all content to be referenced to verifiable
sources. They've asked that you supply these references.

It seems you are the one who's being obstinate and obtuse.

I must be terribly bored again, since I took the time to reply
to your drivel.

Have a nice day!!!!

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?


I pulled the thread because it was badly written but it was not a
complaint against that monster operation called Wikipedia,it is the
astronomical observation that a rotating celestial body with a viscous
composition displays differential rotation hence the highest
probability for the mechanism linking the Earth's spherical deviation
and plate tectonics is one that is already observed in exposed fluid
celestial compositions in rotation.In order to exempt the Earth from
differential rotation for the purpose of maintaining a stationary
Earth mechanism that is thermal driven 'convection cells' means
completely ignoring what astrographs are dictating,you may find this
utterly boring and I have nothing to say about that however the
proposal that there is a connection between the rotating fluid
interior of the Earth with clues left on the surface crust is
incredibly exciting in my eyes.

Of course ,astronomers here are managing to ignore the elephant in the
room in proposing an imaginative 'fact' which completely
disassociates the day/night cycle from daily rotation by denying,even
by being silent,that there are more than a full 365 rotations in a
year and orbital circuit.I have no doubt that readers already see what
went wrong hence the door is open for monster entities like Wikipedia
where everyone is an authority.Before I brought up differential
rotation 6 years ago there was not one sentence on a rotational
mechanism while now there is a whole section but totally devoid of an
uneven rotational gradient across equatorial and polar latitudes so
this is how 'science' is done these days,a slow assimilation that
concocts enough 'citations' to obscure a singular achievement,the
difference being a genuine love of the planet and the forces that
shape it rather than those who pursue terrestrial observation as a
career to impress themselves and others who are of the same
disposition.

I see the viscosity of the Earth's interior pour out of every volcanic
fountain or fissure as lava and can comprehend the energetic dynamics
behind the great geological structures I see with my own eyes and the
real time machine written in the rock and fossil records which are
everywhere as I walk along the shore,drive through the canyons,in
valleys and mountains even if it is perhaps difficult to imagine the
timescales involved compared to our short timespan.

  #4  
Old October 31st 10, 08:52 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
badastrobuster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default A wikipedia detour

On 31 Oct, 06:22, oriel36 wrote:

Remember Kelleher simulates stupidity to annoy, frustrate and
generally wind-up people.

http://www.martin-nicholson.info/tro...llkelleher.htm


  #5  
Old October 31st 10, 09:05 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur,alt.total-loser
Androcles[_33_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 369
Default A wikipedia detour


"Skywise" wrote in message
...
|I was terribly bored and took the time to read the discussion.
|
| It's a very simple issue and you seem dumb as a brick regarding
| it.
|
| If what you propose is NOT original research, then you will have
| references to verifiable sources that also discuss what you
| propose.
|
| The wikipedia moderators are simply enforcing the rules of the
| system that require all content to be referenced to verifiable
| sources. They've asked that you supply these references.
|
| It seems you are the one who's being obstinate and obtuse.
|
| I must be terribly bored again, since I took the time to reply
| to your drivel.
|
| Have a nice day!!!!
|
| 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?

Cardinal Bored Brian:
This is what your predecessor, Cardinal Saint Bobby Bellarmine, wrote in
support of the dual standards of wackypedia.
http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v11n3p18.htm

This is the dual standard I refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"Problems with emission theory" - no references to verifiable sources.
"confirms special relativity" -- Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
"Problems with Special_relativity" - conspicuous by its absence.

Who is guarding you, Cardinal Bored and Boring Brian, total loser?
You seem dumb as a brick regarding it.
Have a miserable day.








  #6  
Old October 31st 10, 11:54 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default A wikipedia detour

On Oct 31, 7:52*am, badastrobuster wrote:
On 31 Oct, 06:22, oriel36 wrote:

Remember Kelleher simulates stupidity to annoy, frustrate and
generally wind-up people.

http://www.martin-nicholson.info/tro...llkelleher.htm


The favorite argument of those who adhere to 'sidereal time'
reasoning,and one seen in another thread on the stability of
telescopic mounts is that a telescope will track a star in stellar
circumpolar motion thereby concluding that this observation where a
star circles the field of view represents daily rotation when,in
fact,it represents geocentricity.This 'skywise' guy is brave as he
leaves an open link to his website when most wouldn't dare do that
nowadays least they get taken to pieces so let's see what Brian here
has to say on this matter by setting up what you empiricists call a
'strawman argument'

http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/Axis/axis.html

If Brian here fixes his telescope on a star in the constellation Ursa
Major and allows it to track that star,he then looks at his telescope
and will notice that the telescope mount becomes the axis of
rotation,homocentricity in other words.People who follow 'sidereal
time' reasoning hardly notice that the inclination,or declination as
it is called in your system,may change with latitude but the
longitudinal motion is common to all and they actually knew about
the problem of homocentricity long before Copernicus reasoned out the
daily and orbital dynamics of the Earth -

"Suppose person A were on the earth somewhere below the north pole of
the heavens and person B were at the north pole of the heavens. In
that case, to A the pole would appear to be at the zenith, and A would
believe himself to be at the center; to B the earth would appear to be
at the zenith, and B would believe himself to be at the center. Thus,
A's zenith would be B's center, and B's zenith would be A's.
And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the Universe] will appear as a wheel in a wheel
and a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Archbishop Cusa 15th century

The issue which I originally wrote about but withdrew because of
exceptionally bad proofreading is that as long as a rotating
composition is in a fluid and not solid state there will be varying
amounts of differential rotation depending on the viscosity of the
composition.They already compare maximum equatorial speeds in
different stars of roughly the same mass in terms of spherical
deviation with differential rotation certainly a common factor,the
subtle arguments therefore extend to all rotating bodies with
spherical deviations and rotating fluid compositions hence
evolutionary geology is simply an outrigger of planetary dynamics in
terms of the clues left on the surface.Again,must it be 'eppur si
muove' all over again using known observations to fill in speculative
gaps where the fluid interior is hidden beneath the surface fractured
crust.

I don't mind if people think meshing astronomy with geology is
boring,I wouldn't care if they never considered .



  #7  
Old October 31st 10, 06:32 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default A wikipedia detour

On Oct 31, 12:22*am, oriel36 wrote:
the
astronomical observation that a rotating celestial body with a viscous
composition displays differential rotation hence the highest
probability for the mechanism linking the Earth's spherical deviation
and plate tectonics is one that is already observed in exposed fluid
celestial compositions in rotation.


The molten rock in the Earth's interior is orders of magnitude more
viscous than the atmosphere of Jupiter or the Sun. The "differential
rotation" seen on Jupiter and the Sun has the same cause as the trade
winds on Earth - the interaction between convection and rotation.

Observations of the heavenly bodies are not enough by themselves. To
obtain understanding, we need to relate what we see to its underlying
physical cause. You're proposing we throw this out of astronomy - to
make astronomy, basically, pre-scientific. No, you won't find any
takers.

John Savard
  #8  
Old October 31st 10, 06:34 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default A wikipedia detour

On Oct 31, 4:54*am, oriel36 wrote:

If Brian here fixes his telescope on a star in the constellation Ursa
Major and allows it to track that star,he then looks at his telescope
and will notice that the telescope mount becomes the axis of
rotation,homocentricity in other words.


The effects of parallax are small, but when we neglect them, we do so
with open eyes, and are fully aware that they do exist. When they are
relevant, we take them into account. So your charge against
conventional astronomy is invalid.

John Savard
  #9  
Old October 31st 10, 07:57 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default A wikipedia detour

On Oct 30, 11:22*pm, oriel36 wrote:

I pulled the thread because it was badly written...


When it comes to content, everything you 'contribute' is badly
written, so maybe you should just pull ALL your posts.

If you were at all teachable, or had a logical bone in your body, it
would be very different.

"Most of the mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception
rather than mistakes of logic."
- Edward de Bono

\Paul A
  #10  
Old October 31st 10, 08:48 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default A wikipedia detour

On Oct 31, 5:14*am, Skywise wrote:

The wikipedia moderators are simply enforcing the rules of the
system that require all content to be referenced to verifiable
sources. They've asked that you supply these references.

It seems you are the one who's being obstinate and obtuse.


Putting the Wikipedia system into a checkmate situation is much better
than complaining about the pseudo-authority of that website thereby
showing the limitations of that reference system which is now
unrivaled in the world for exposure as most people putting a topic
into a google search will find Wikipedia as the first site listed.As
the characteristics of a rotating viscous composition is not original
research they got cut to pieces when it is applied to the Earth's
rotating fluid interior hence my irritation with the large
institutions for the dilution of authority by those busybodies in
Wikipedia who make nuisances of themselves.

The Usenet is plagued with nuisances but it perhaps the only present
conduit for original research where a topic does not suffer death by
citation.There was once a time when men could discuss things openly,I
know this from reading the correspondences between men and even those
Royal Society empiricists as they went about their business.Looking at
what constitutes reactions rather than responses here,there is very
little to go on but considering what readers here are prepared to
believe,something which is easily resolved by what a 24 hour Feb
rotation does,it is no wonder I cannot expand into the incredibly
exciting links between planetary spherical deviation and crustal
evolution and motion using a common rotational mechanism - 'eppur si
muove'.




 




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
Who does what on Wikipedia? Mike Jr Astronomy Misc 8 March 14th 10 07:46 AM
A find on Wikipedia: LESS Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)[_74_] History 8 July 28th 09 09:19 PM
Wikipedia Said It Couldn't be Done! John Savard[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 3 September 28th 07 07:46 PM
Detour: Planetary Construction Zone Ahead [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 June 24th 05 10:40 PM
Detour: Planetary Construction Zone Ahead [email protected] News 0 June 24th 05 10:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:38 PM.


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.