Re: Don's blog

From: don findlay (don_at_tower.net.au)
Date: 07/20/04 

Date: 19 Jul 2004 19:23:43 -0700

"Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message news:<40fbb32a$0$287$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk>...
> "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:40fba2af$0$189$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>
> snip
>
> > > of the planet to the sorts of changes in the Earth's
> > > rotation that have moved central Africa from the Pole to whre it is
> > > now <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/christmas.html>
> >
> > Skimming the palaeoreconstructions in Fowler I don't see any palaeo-pole
> in
> > Africa.
>
> Euler's pole, ofcourse - not the geographic pole.
>
> > I figure that you have to disband any magnetostratigrafic
> > measurement to make your world fit right. Another stack of geologists down
> > the drain.
>
> The objection stands anyway as put elsewhere in this post.
>
> snip

___________________________________

Look, Carsten, ... It's really very easy. I'll answer your previous
post later, but here, it's simple. Gondwanaland. All fitted
together, once-upon-a-time, across the what is now Indian and Atlantic
Oceans. Yes? Well so it did across the Pacific too (with Laurasia).
They key to how lies in the helical (torsional/ twisting) growth.
That's all. It's that simple. If plate tectonics incorporates that
twist, then it goes down the same road. No choice. But it has to
recognise the existence of that helical spiral/ (sort of helix). It
will be a while, once it recognises the *EXISTENCE* of it, before it
recognises the *SIGNIFICANCE* of it, I grant you (there is so much to
be undone / dropped off); I'm just giving you a bit of a pointer.
Don't argue about coriolis, and forces and models. They're not an
issue. Just bring it back to the empirical observations (geology),
and you'll be right. See the continents, not as black-hooded jigsaw
pieces to be fitted together, but see how they've behaved in relation
to the growth of the ocean floors (before they start getting
destroyed). And then see if there's any need for that 'destruction'.
(Sorry, let's call it 'excision', ..to match the growth, and leave
aside notions of 'convection' and 'rotation'. Eventuyally you'll get
around to considering the two, but they're getting in the way.

Relevant Pages