Re: PLATE MAPS OF THE PAST
From: Oriel36 (geraldkelleher_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/04/04
- Next message: Evert Wesker: "Re: Rigging a Volcano"
- Previous message: Oriel36: "Re: FAQS - Earth Expansion"
- In reply to: George: "Re: PLATE MAPS OF THE PAST"
- Next in thread: CAP: "Re: PLATE MAPS OF THE PAST"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 4 Jul 2004 13:20:53 -0700
" George" <george@george.net> wrote in message news:<V9hFc.353$bj2.135@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> "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.
Funny,funny,funny,!,everytime I see this it makes me laugh.Let me
translate what Newtonian 'frame of reference' means to geologists.The
term 'frame of reference ' only came into existence in the early 20th
century and then only to make everything homocentric.
Newton erroneously thought that the Earth orbiting the Sun was the
same as the Sun orbiting the Earth (excerpt provided below),the only
difference being that he thought the Sun had no rotation while the
Earth did therefore he imagined that you could see the orbital motion
of the planets directly (you can't !).
> 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.
What you and the astrophysicists are forgetting or can't understand is
that you are reducing everything to surface motion due to axial
rotation and cannot handle the greater variation due to annual
orbital motion and your view is genuinely funny for the deficiency.In
allowing for the effects of axial rotation on say the surface feature
of hurricane development it is amazing that you can't go further and
keep an eye on the greater orbital motion of the Earth effecting
physical features.
> 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.
Pity Don can't set aside the coriolis force generating local
meteorological physical features and even the effect on Foucault's
pendulum which indicates the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency -
http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/people/students/baker/SouthPoleFoucault.html
You poor bugger are caught in a 'frame of reference '
nightmare,entirely useless for geology and anything else.Don,at least
admitted that his astronomical capabilities are limited and that is
not a fault,but you fall for a dumb thing like 'frames of reference'
and you might impress the hell out of physicists but for anything else
you are merely a subset of creationism.
Coriolis force is too local to be useful except as determing what the
axial rotation rate of the Earth is,however it does indicate that a
greater force is acting on the Earth namely the great motion of the
Earth around the Sun.Who knows,you might even discover the insight of
Copernicus someday.
I live in the 21st century,you live back in Newton's era subsequently
I find Newton's notions funny while you expand on them.The guys in the
early 20th century did'nt create a cartoon universe,Newton did !.
"PHÆNOMENON V.
Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth, describe areas
no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which they
describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the times of
description.
For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes
of that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."
Principia
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
http://www.eumetsat.de/en/mtp/images/sidereal.gif
- Next message: Evert Wesker: "Re: Rigging a Volcano"
- Previous message: Oriel36: "Re: FAQS - Earth Expansion"
- In reply to: George: "Re: PLATE MAPS OF THE PAST"
- Next in thread: CAP: "Re: PLATE MAPS OF THE PAST"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
