Venus rotation

On 1/3/10 12:26 AM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Jan 2, 1:38 pm, Sam wrote:


Triggering minor quakes is one thing... influencing plate notion
should show up in the plate monitoring gps data.

If I said it does Sam you'd send me out to get refs and then I'd get
a pile of homework, recall I dropped out of school in Gr.4 to get an
education ;-).

The gps data is ambiguous, but does 'suggest' relative motion of
continents and islands like Hawaii, to add tidal force moves the
ground up and down a foot or 2 a day.

Um... I think you mean 2 cm not 2 feet.

The lateral measurements are in the centimeters/year range, so
yeah, the plates are being "pulled" about.

A complicating factor is the Earth is expanding from it's original
compaction, but the body of evidence suggests South America
was ripped off Africa, that's the so-called continental drift theory.

Er... a... I hadn't noticed that the earth was expanding at all,
even though tonnes of meteoric dust settles on the earth annually.

How's that Sammy old boy?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

:-)

On 1/3/10 8:46 AM, oriel36 wrote:


For centuries it was speculated that the Earth's rotation influenced
its spherical deviation but not until observation of rotating
celestial compositions in a viscous state show differential rotation
could the details be inserted into our planet's feature,the difference
between the even rotational gradient of the crust between equatorial
and polar regions as opposed to the uneven rotational gradient of the
viscous interior in the driving force behind crust evolution/motion
and spherical deviation.


http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html
http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/slrtecto.html

"Tectonic motion for points around the world can be estimated from a
variety of space geodetic technologies (e.g., satellite laser ranging
(SLR), Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), Global Positioning
System (GPS) among others)".

On Jan 3, 3:08*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/3/10 8:46 AM, oriel36 wrote:



For centuries it was speculated that the Earth's rotation influenced
its spherical deviation but not until observation of rotating
celestial compositions in a viscous state show differential rotation
could the details be inserted into our planet's feature,the difference
between the even rotational gradient of the crust between equatorial
and polar regions as opposed to the uneven rotational gradient of the
viscous interior in the driving force behind crust evolution/motion
and spherical deviation.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/und.../slrtecto.html

"Tectonic motion for points around the world can be estimated from a
variety of space geodetic technologies (e.g., satellite laser ranging
(SLR), Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), Global Positioning
System (GPS) among others)".

It is not possible to explain symmetrical crustal generation off the
entire length of the Mid Atlantic Ridge using 'convection cells',that
idea is so hideous that it is easy enough to dismiss but
differential rotation and the shear bands involved make is easy enough
to see how the viscous composition acts to create and move the surface
crust.

The websites you reference show only the motion of the plates and say
nothing about the cause of that movement whereas I point out that if
people draw from astronomical observations and the generalised rules
which govern the relationship between maximum equatorial speed and
spherical deviation in a rotating viscous composition,they will
discover the the same rotational mechanism which causes the Earth to
deviate from a perfect sphere also acts on the surface crust and
subsequently generates events such as eruptions and earthquakes.

To determine tectonic motion requires a very definite set of
dimensions such as 15 degrees of geographical separation at the
equator representing 1669.8 km so that the equator rotates at 15
degrees per hour or through 1669.8 km per hour.Whatever value you come
up with 'sidereal time' I would not care to know no more than I have
patience for people who can't make the leap to the link between
internal rotational dynamics and crustal dynamics.Even if that USGS
website muddies the water by admitting it does not known what causes
plate motion,the answer is pretty straightforward - until people come
to their senses and recognise the different latitudinal speeds
representative of rotation through 360 degrees in 24
hours,evolutionary geology will remain a wasteland.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/unanswered.html

Instead of dithering around and handwringing,these guys have to make
an attempt to link the generalised rules for a rotating celestial
viscous compositions and apply it to the Earth's interior,they already
do it in making stellar comparisons between maximum equatorial speeds
and spherical deviation so they have no excuse in not applying the
lessons to the Earth's viscous interior -

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5604

The objections that a planet is not a star hardly counterbalances the
observations of the viscosity of erupting volcanoes and lava flows
which determine an energetic interior dynamic as opposed to the
treacle-like composition beloved on convectioneers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr9hD...om=PL&index=44

On 1/3/10 9:45 AM, oriel36 wrote:
On Jan 3, 3:08 pm, Sam wrote:


http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/und.../slrtecto.html

"Tectonic motion for points around the world can be estimated from a
variety of space geodetic technologies (e.g., satellite laser ranging
(SLR), Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), Global Positioning
System (GPS) among others)".

It is not possible to explain symmetrical crustal generation off the
entire length of the Mid Atlantic Ridge using 'convection cells',that
idea is so hideous that it is easy enough to dismiss but
differential rotation and the shear bands involved make is easy enough
to see how the viscous composition acts to create and move the surface
crust.

The websites you reference show only the motion of the plates and say
nothing about the cause of that movement...

That's right, Gerald, and there is a good reason for that. The
science is too young to say definitively what all the causes are!

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:22:32 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

That's right, Gerald, and there is a good reason for that. The
science is too young to say definitively what all the causes are!

Of course, many explanations provided by scientific investigation are
not "definitive"... which of course does not mean that the explanations
are bad ones, nor that they aren't substantially correct. The
explanation that convective processes are the primary driver of plate
movement is very well accepted, and is supported by an increasing volume
of data as research advances. (That there is convection in the core and
mantle is certain, as these have been directly observed.)
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Jan 3, 4:44*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:22:32 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

* That's right, Gerald, and there is a good reason for that. The
* science is too young to say definitively what all the causes are!

Of course, many explanations provided by scientific investigation are
not "definitive"... which of course does not mean that the explanations
are bad ones, nor that they aren't substantially correct. The
explanation that convective processes are the primary driver of plate
movement is very well accepted, and is supported by an increasing volume
of data as research advances. (That there is convection in the core and
mantle is certain, as these have been directly observed.)
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Go ahead,demonstrate the use of 'convection cells' for creation of
crust either side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge for those who know no
better -

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/pre...2/60018786.JPG

As 'convection cells' require no association with the planetary
dynamic of rotation nor with planetary shape,I would no expect you to
understand the actual mechanism derived from daily rotation which
influences the orientation of the MAR,the generation of crust across
the entire length of the ridge ,the symmetrical and proportional
quantities of ocean crust off the ridge and the characteristic S
shape indicative of the lag/advance mechanism of differential
rotational shear bands.

You have an intense dislike of astronomy and a fondness for optics,I
suggest you retreat to lens caps and magnification equipment and leave
others to consider the link between planetary dynamics and geological
effects.

On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 09:31:12 -0800 (PST), oriel36
wrote:

Go ahead,demonstrate the use of 'convection cells' for creation of
crust either side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge for those who know no
better...

My comment wasn't directed at you, but rather to those with an
understanding and interest in science.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Jan 3, 5:36*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 09:31:12 -0800 (PST), oriel36

wrote:
Go ahead,demonstrate the use of 'convection cells' for creation of
crust either side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge *for those who know no
better...

My comment wasn't directed at you, but rather to those with an
understanding and interest in science.


Your stationary Earth 'convection cell' comment is due to the fact
that you can't express the basic rotational fact that the Earth turns
through 15 degrees and 1669.8 km per hour at the equator hence you
can't have any interest in the geological effects of planetary
rotation and especially the mechanism which links the viscous interior
with the surface crust and the rotational signatures it leaves there.

Differential rotation is actually for people who can open their eyes
when they see lava flows and can grasp easily that a rotating
celestial composition in a molten/viscous state does not rotate as a
unit but in differential shear bands -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qR_xMXJoBM

Now that the alarmism and exotic novelties of empiricism are
fading,it is time for the new agenda of using modern imaging to
connect planetary dynamics with terrestrial effects in all spheres of
existence from geology to climate to biology and planetary history.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com


Maybe you and mr genius iq can battle it out over 'convection cells'
or the Sun/Moon as the driver of plate motion,the actual mechanism is
supplied by the Earth's rotation and the common link with planetary
shape.

On Jan 3, 12:30 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 23:39:44 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"

wrote:
Chris, I read your post a couple of times, I guess your refering to
Power Factor?. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm dense...

I don't know how to interpret "power factor" in this context. I don't
think that's what I'm talking about.

Hmmm, consider a solid sphere with zero viscosity, tidal effects
cannot
heat it, next consider a sphere with infinite viscosity, such as a
fluidic
body has, again tidal affects cannot heat it. The transfer of power to
the
sphere requires a viscosity between 0 and oo, you know this same idea
from using 8 ohm speakers to match your sound amplifier, it's physics.

My point was that tidal heating of the Earth's interior can be ruled out
because we aren't extracting enough energy from the Moon to explain the
observed heating, and the lack of tectonics on Venus is explainable by a
lack of convection in the mantle, which is understood as a consequence
of a low thermal gradient. Radioactive heating doesn't automatically
require that convection will be present.

No, do the calculation for yourself, we get 70 megatons input each day
from the Moon, also go to your nearest volcano and take a Geiger
counter,
and tell us what you read.
Ken S. Tucker

On Jan 3, 6:51 am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 2, 11:26 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

A complicating factor is the Earth is expanding from it's original
compaction,

Not by much, if at all. There was an old expanding earth theory which
preceded plate tectonics, but that is no longer accepted; it did lay
some groundwork for recognizing that Wegener could be right after all.
John Savard

Ahhh, we got H20, natural gas, oil, poring out of the Earth, but the
extent
of the density decrease, I don't know, I made that point for that
reason.
I figure Earth is expanding at 1 cm/century, but I can't prove that.
Ken