Re: Inside/Outside Earth Processes
From: Oriel36 (geraldkelleher_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/12/04
- Next message: Joe Blow: "Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record"
- Previous message: rick++: "Re: Choosing a discipline???"
- In reply to: don findlay: "Re: Inside/Outside Earth Processes"
- Next in thread: don findlay: "Re: Inside/Outside Earth Processes"
- Reply: don findlay: "Re: Inside/Outside Earth Processes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 12 Jul 2004 10:12:02 -0700
don@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.0407100356.7d46bd18@posting.google.com>...
> geraldkelleher@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.0407090936.3f9dff4@posting.google.com>...
> > don@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.0407080616.150a22dc@posting.google.com>...
> > > dharder@bnl-dot-gov.no-spam.invalid (DAH) wrote in message news:<40ec163a$1_1@127.0.0.1>...
> > > > Yes Don,
> > > > Physics 101 means basic physics. I sometimes like to accentuate my
> > > > righteous contempt for the dogmatic trappings by returning to basics,
> > > > which is where the truth resides; the trappings often obfuscate the
> > > > truth. Do not misinterpret it as condescension.
> > >
> > > In plate tectonics then this is back to the big "IF": if the Earth
> > > remains a constant size (etc etc). People seem reluctant to address
> > > this one, even as a hypothetical. Oriel is deploring the trouble he
> > > has with getting an astronomical point across, and now you are saying
> > > the same about regular physics.. Which basically means 'dogma' is
> > > across the board. (Beats me why dogma is so very discussable amongst
> > > the informed; it would seem to me there's nothing in it to discuss. )
> > >
> > >
> > > The purveyors of
> > > > modern geophysical theory, and I don?t necessarily mean contributors
> > > > to this forum, cannot adequately answer your query regarding plate
> > > > tectonics, because they seemingly do not comprehend basic issues of
> > > > angular momentum. Consider inside/outside Earth processes and how
> > > > the angular momentum of the Earth is conserved.
> > > >
> > > > Seismic tomography has provided a fascinating look at the interior of
> > > > the Earth. Imagine how the interior of the Earth has evolved over
> > > > time. Of particular interest is the growth of the anticontinents at
> > > > the core-mantle boundary. That growth has attempted to change the
> > > > moment of inertia of the Earth by redistributing mass. If you
> > > > suspect that the external reconfiguration of the plates and orogeny
> > > > is driven by the internal reconfiguration of the Earth structure,
> > > > then I think you are right, but I would point out once again that the
> > > > underlying issue is ?conservation of angular momentum?.
> > >
> > > Never heard of anti-continents, thanks for that, D. (Though I see
> > > briefly an article describing them as "ghost artifacts of procedure").
> > > There are plenty of continental (and mantle) palimpsests in and
> > > around the Pacific, and I have wondered what they mean in terms of
> > > three-dimensional growth, for sectors that may have been 'left behind'
> > > during the outwards growth of the mantle. Doubtless there's a
> > > connection. The ones we see are the ones that continued to 'float'
> > > but I can think of ways that mantle growth could get them to stay down
> > > there.
> > > The Wharton Basin (between India and Australia is a dead ringer of a
> > > 'foundation' for India; what if it stayed down where it used to be, as
> > > the crust grew outwards to where it is at present? (Interesting
> > > thought [to me], in the light of some of the other 'duplicates' that
> > > are around.)
> > >
> > > > Robert,
> > > > Hold a brick over your foot. Let go. When you understand why the
> > > > action of the brick hitting your foot does not change the moment of
> > > > inertia of the universe, you will have achieved a deeper
> > > > understanding of physical reality. Recondite matters? I think not
> > > > Bob. Conservation of momentum is perhaps the simplest concept in
> > > > physics. Do not fret Bob, Newton didn?t understand the essence of
> > > > physical reality and neither did Einstein, and they were bright
> > > > fellows. Sometimes one must begin at the beginning to find the
> > > > correct path to what lies directly in front of the nose. Knowledge
> > > > and humility are not strangers.
> > >
> > > Yes, indeed. Back to to the wrong turning.. 50 years...
> > > >
> > > > Oriel36,
> > > > yes, there is much to be said for 'common sense?. Go beyond the
> > > > ?LAWS? and ask why? Perhaps it is as you say that Newton didn?t
> > > > claim that mass was constant, but can you direct me to the place in
> > > > the Principia where he proposes that mass is variable?
> > >
> > > What an interesting point! (Just a thought..) If the fundamentals
> > > of mass are so tied up with electrical charge in the
> > > pea-in-the-football-park analogy, ..If we change that 'dimensional
> > > space' and 'compress' things (electrical force), ... does mass (and I
> > > know it's counterintuitive, but I'm thinking *equilibrium*) DECREASE?
> >
> > As you are geologist,it may be better to consider mass in terms of
> > volume and density,even if you phrase it as Earth expansion,you have a
> > good case for considering any variations in the volume/density ratio
> > of material churned up by the Earth's interior process affecting the
> > evolution of surface features.
> >
> > Anything with volume can be expressed geometrically therefore it is
> > really unhelpful to discuss these matters with physicists who
> > attribute geometric properties to space,simply stated,space has no
> > geometric properties despite a century's worth of 'warped space'.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > So that taking the pressure 'off' again (so to speak) allows mass to
> > > settle back to its normal 'equilibrium' 'static' value?
> >
> > Geologically,mass remains constant but as this is an umbrella term for
> > the density/volume ratio of different rocks or different strata in the
> > Earth's interior by all accounts it should affect periodic subsidence
> > or expansion in the Earth's crust.Again,I don't pretend to be a
> > geologist but astronomical equivalents do exist in terms of the
> > variations in density/volume ratio's (mass) in variable stars and
> > these I am quite comfortable with.
> >
> > http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/cepheid_variable.html
> >
> > I suspect that you will be subjected to the usual definitional
> > equivocation of mass and associated terms,this being a product of
> > early 20th century thinking or rather lapse in thinking.We inherit the
> > worst part of that tradition and what would otherwise be a normal
> > discussion on tangible differences between density /volume ratios of
> > rocks or the mantle becomes lost in the tendency of the gravitational
> > guys to babble on about what you do and do not understand about
> > physics.Let them Don,they operate out of a celestial sphere for
> > cosmological modelling and a stationary Earth for the evolution of
> > physical features.
>
> Oriel,
> My apologies for not answering your last one.
I enjoy your postings too much to have you apologise.
A documentary on the BBC had a propellar driven India crashing into
Asia all the way from South America no less,a month ago I probably
would have settled for the explanation but it now seems that there is
a whole lot missing from that explanation notwithstanding that the PT
details propounded by participants in this forum merely make
contemporary views seem less unlikely
I put it aside because
> it raised so many points, and then it got buried in the maelstrom of
> more immediate responses from Carsten (Hi Carsten!). I forget, but I
> remember I meant to say something along the lines of to hang in there,
> and that if what you are encoutering in the astronomical side is
> anything like what I am on the geological side, then I for one
> understand your position exactly.
>
You know Don,for a number of months last year I pushed hard for using
supernova data as standard distance markers but dropped it for want of
comment,this year somebody came up with the same idea but retained
elements that were best jettisoned.In this respect,taking the Earth's
rotation into account will sooner or later be assimilated into the
evolution of physical features,unfortunately your work on the matter
will suffer the same dilution,nobody will ask you for comment and to
all intents and purposes your only reward will be indignity despite
the fact that it probably cost you drop by drop an inhuman effort to
have it discussed.My apologises to you in advance.
> That's a very interesting bit about mass = density and volume
> ('Convection'). If mass can be expressed in terms of density and
> volume....(I was dead good at that in school - cross-multiplication -
> for all that BGeorge says ) I wonder what else it can be expressed in
> terms of ... 'electrical pressure' and strange fundametal particles?
> I got lost on the first day of electricity. Electricity? What's
> that? And +ve and -ve too? (whatever that was supposed to mean)
> Wahoowww! What is *THAT* all about ?? I still don't see any *real*
> answers, and so long as the likes of Stuart are bent on talking in the
> comfortable terms of wet legs, and refusing to dry up/out, I don't
> see there being any in the short term either.
>
I realise that you will be away for a while and seeing the creationist
roadshow has shown up in sci.geology perhaps I will follow suit with
the given that we will pick these things up again when the clamor dies
down.
> (I added a longer bit, but re-reading it, I've deleted it - to the
> relief of many no doubt; it was along the lines of mediocrity;
> mass/volume ($) = density).
>
> Thanks for your links.
>
>
> > Mass and
> > > electrical charge seem to be so strangely tied it seems sort of
> > > logical to think of some mutual commensurate 'flux' between them might
> > > operate to maintain a staus quo.. (Just musing; don't know the first
> > > thing about it) (Shut up, George)
> > >
> >
> > Nature is all balances,that much I do understand in the larger context
> > of things.
> >
> > I have one copyright to my name in regard to the stellar
> > volume/density ratio involved in stellar collapse and why a supernova
> > generates two outer rings and a smaller inner ring.Given that the work
> > originates in 1990 or 4 years before the images of SN1984A became
> > availible,I am rightly proud of the achievement even if there is no
> > facility availible to accept it.
> >
> > http://www.pacificnet.net/~sonia/cosmic/sn1987a-rings.jpg
> >
> > The supernova work exists now only as something personal
> > notwithstanding that what is left is having to deal with these lousy
> > freaks who can't make an association between two intertwined
> > disciplines which by nature should compliment each other,not just
> > geology/astronomy but who knows what other areas that could be brought
> > into play.The astronomers and physicists would never admit to being
> > deficient in some way and consider it a weakness that you would admit
> > your unfamiliarity with astronomy,I do not say this as a lament for
> > they themselves operate on such disjointed notions of the
> > universe,large and small, that unfamiliarity can only be an attribute.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > DAH 7/7/04
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > http://www.usenet.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> > > > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> > > > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
- Next message: Joe Blow: "Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record"
- Previous message: rick++: "Re: Choosing a discipline???"
- In reply to: don findlay: "Re: Inside/Outside Earth Processes"
- Next in thread: don findlay: "Re: Inside/Outside Earth Processes"
- Reply: don findlay: "Re: Inside/Outside Earth Processes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
