Re: Relativity question
- From: "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Nov 2005 02:44:50 -0800
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 .
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Relativity question
- From: Skywise
- Re: Relativity question
- References:
- Re: Relativity question
- From: oriel36
- Re: Relativity question
- From: Ioannis
- Re: Relativity question
- From: Skywise
- Re: Relativity question
- From: oriel36
- Re: Relativity question
- From: Skywise
- Re: Relativity question
- From: oriel36
- Re: Relativity question
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Relativity question
- From: oriel36
- Re: Relativity question
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Relativity question
- From: Phil Wheeler
- Re: Relativity question
- From: oriel36
- Re: Relativity question
- From: Martin Brown
- Re: Relativity question
- From: oriel36
- Re: Relativity question
- From: Martin Brown
- Re: Relativity question
- Prev by Date: achromats needed for H-alpha light?
- Next by Date: Re: Einstien
- Previous by thread: Re: Relativity question
- Next by thread: Re: Relativity question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|