Re: PLATE MAPS OF THE PAST

From: George (george_at_george.net)
Date: 07/02/04 

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 13:52:10 -0400

"Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:40e54e14$0$133$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>
> " George" <george@george.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:ge9Fc.4230$w64.1477@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message
>> news:40e50368$0$133$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>> >
>> > "don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
>> > news:5f164087.0407012150.1593b88c@posting.google.com...
>> >> "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message
>> > news:<40e47389$0$134$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>...
>> >> > "don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
>> >> > news:5f164087.0407010712.36920fc4@posting.google.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > snip
>> >> >
>> >> > > Deja vu? : <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/globaltorsion.html>
>> >> >
>> >> > You say:
>> >> > 'Note that the illustration shows the torsion on the substrate of the
>> >> > current Earth'
>> >> >
>> >> > Not relating to your illustration, what is in itself 'the torsion on
>> > the
>> >> > substrate of the current earth'?
>> >> >
>> >> > If torsion is two forces acting in uppersit directions to produce
> sheer,
>> > and
>> >> > sun/moon attraction on earth constitute one force. What is the second
>> >> > (obviously working in the interior of the earth)?
>> >>
>> >> I've only thought about it to the extent of what could be putting a
>> >> torsion of that sort on the earth that's linked to "burgeoning diapir
>> >> rise", and hypothesised about the Moon, so I guess the torque would
>> >> be due to the capture of the Moon, and its attempt towards
>> >> equilibrium.
>> >
>> > As you may have read in my question, I already added the moon as the one
>> > force acting. I specifically ask for the other force involved.
>>
>> Except that the "torque" that Don refers to had to have occurred 225-250
> million
>> years ago, instead of 4.5 billion years ago when the moon first formed.
> The
>> reason is because the "torqued" structures he refers to (which allegedly
>> includes the opening up of the Pacific Ocean) can only be 225-250 million
> years
>> old. And that is if you consider that the origin of the moon was from a
>> capture, and not a collision, as many believe.
>>
>
> I still don't even get how the moon get involved.

The simply answer is that it isn't.

>Twisting the earth as Don suggests would take a force acting one way in in the
>southern hemisphere and
> the other way in the northern. Taking the transforms, or the coherent
> faultzone pieced together as developed in such a scenario as a 'proof' of
> this 'torsion' and a foundation for an expanding earth is as far fetched as
> it gets.

Yes it is far-fetched. He apparently thinks that the coriolis effect is somehow
involved. If the ordinary Newtonian laws of motion of bodies are to be used in
a rotating frame of reference, an inertial force--acting to the right of the
direction of body motion for counterclockwise rotation of the reference frame or
to the left for clockwise rotation--must be included in the equations of motion.
The effect of the Coriolis force is an "apparent" deflection of the path of an
object that moves within a rotating coordinate system. The object does not
"actually" deviate from its path, but it appears to do so because of the motion
of the coordinate system.

The Coriolis effect is most apparent in the path of an object moving
longitudinally. On the Earth an object that moves along a north-south path, or
longitudinal line, will undergo apparent deflection to the right in the Northern
Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. are two reasons for this
phenomenon: first, the Earth rotates eastward; and second, the tangential
velocity of a point on the Earth is a function of latitude (the velocity is
essentially zero at the poles and it attains a maximum value at the Equator).
Thus, if a cannon were fired northward from a point on the Equator, the
projectile would land to the east of its due north path. This variation would
occur because the projectile was moving eastward faster at the Equator than was
its target farther north. Similarly, if the weapon were fired toward the Equator
from the North Pole, the projectile would again land to the right of its true
path. In this case, the target area would have moved eastward before the shell
reached it because of its greater eastward velocity. An exactly similar
displacement occurs if the projectile is fired in any direction.

The Coriolis deflection is therefore related to the motion of the object, the
motion of the Earth, and the latitude. For this reason, the magnitude of the
effect is given by 2 sin , in which is the velocity of the object, is the
angular velocity of the Earth, and is the latitude.

The Coriolis effect has great significance in astrophysics and stellar dynamics,
in which it is a controlling factor in the directions of rotation of sunspots.
It is also significant in the earth sciences, especially meteorology, physical
geology, and oceanography, in that the Earth is a rotating frame of reference,
and motions over the surface of the Earth are subject to acceleration from the
force indicated. Thus, the Coriolis force figures prominently in studies of the
dynamics of the atmosphere, in which it affects prevailing winds and the
rotation of storms, and in the hydrosphere, in which it affects the rotation of
the oceanic currents.

Now, in order for the coriolis effect to have done to the crust of the earth
what he suggests, it seems to me that the entire crust of the earth would have
had to have had its origin at both the north and the south poles to get the
apparent result he shows on his web site, which is plainly not the case.
Finally, if the coriolis effect was involved in the structural dynamics of the
crust, gravity, and/or the rotation of the earth would necessarily have to be
much stronger/faster than they currently are, or have ever been in the past in
order to overcome the inherent strength of the solid earth. That is also
plainly not the case.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Earth rotation
    ... >> constant axial rotation of the Earth occuring within variable orbital ... >> motion. ... rotating around them never mind the earth around the sun or the sun ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Earth rotation
    ... >> constant axial rotation of the Earth occuring within variable orbital ... >> motion. ... rotating around them never mind the earth around the sun or the sun ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: PLATE MAPS OF THE PAST
    ... He apparently thinks that the coriolis effect is somehow ... If the ordinary Newtonian laws of motion of bodies are to be used in ... Newton erroneously thought that the Earth orbiting the Sun was the ... difference being that he thought the Sun had no rotation while the ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: non relativist / non aetherist reply
    ... orbital direction and how the orientation of the daylight/darkness ... Apply constant axial rotation within the above graphic and you have ... the real reason for the necessity of th Equation of Time as the Earth ... The daylight/darkness line is a property of orbital motion remaining ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Earth rotation
    ... I give you a brief outline of why turning to physicists on this ... > constant axial rotation of the Earth occuring within variable orbital ... > second law of planetary ORBITAL motion and has nothing to say about ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
Quantcast