Re: Icecap compression questions

From: Oriel36 (geraldkelleher_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/02/04 

Date: 2 Aug 2004 06:15:58 -0700

don@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.0407312319.43a82c25@posting.google.com>...
> geraldkelleher@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.0407310714.644c84cf@posting.google.com>...
> > Christof Kuhn <Christof.Kuhn@boku.ac.at> wrote in message news:<410ACE74.1000101@boku.ac.at>...
> > > S. King wrote:
> > > > I wonder if any of you could be so kind as to put my mind to rest, at
> > > > least with regards to a few nagging questions.
> > > >
> > > > Any estimates on how much has the slow accumulation of the icecaps
> > > > depressed the crust?
> > > >
> > > > More than 3 kms?
> > > > http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/EmmanuelleStJean.shtml
> > > > http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MaySy.shtml
> > > >
> > > Note that rock is about 3 times denser than ice. This means that 3,000 m
> > > ice cover requires only 1,000 m of rock depression.
> > > In central Scandinavia (Umeå - Vaasa), the maximum depression at the
> > > (rather abrupt) end of the last ice age was about 300 m (compared to
> > > now, but Scandinavia is still rising - continents require many thousands
> > > of years to reach equilibrium again).
> > >
> > > > Could the lengthening equator (bulging), and the Yellowstone National
> > > > Park hotspot be caused by the polar icecap depressions squeezing the
> > > > sphere of the planet?
> > > >
> > > 0.3 (Scandinavia) to some 1 or 1.5 km depression (Greenland, Antarctica)
> > > is nothing compared to 6370 km (Earth's radius).
> > > The bulge is caused by the Earth's inertia and accounts for several km,
> > > IIRC.
> > > Hot Spots don't care about glaciers at all, they are caused by processes
> > > hundreds to thousands of km below.
> > >
> > > > Could the depressed crust be influencing the currents within the
> > > > mantel, and/or could those currents build pressure that results in a
> > > > shift of the crust relative to the currents?
> > > >
> > > Again, the thickness of the mantle currents is way greater than the
> > > amount of depression. There may be a very slight effect, but the ice
> > > ages are too short compared to the inertia of the giant rock masses
> > > involved.
> > >
> >
> > It is incredible that the differentiation between equatorial and polar
> > radii can be attributed to the Earth's motion but not the smaller
> > component crustal motions which are responsible for the development of
> > surface features.
>
> Absolutely unbelievable! "Umm, Yes, umm, ...the movement of the
> continents proceeds like this, around small circles, like umm, this,
> ...but no, the architecture of the collisions (everybody knows they
> collide) have got nothing to do with the trace of that motion.".
> What have they got in their heads? I think we've tested that in the
> last little while. Amazing, isn't it, ...Since satellite imagery,
> they have within their grasp the field evidence to make the most
> astounding leap forward in understanding the planet (and have had it
> for what, *DECADES* at any rate, ..and they insist in being rooted in
> the middle of (we can say it now) the last century), but what do they
> do? Look through the wrong end of the telescope. And get angry when
> you point out that it's the other end that's the big one. Anyone can
> see one Euler pole is fine, but you run into problems when you sum
> them all up. Problems? What problems? Palaeoclimatology and
> magnetics already have it sussed out. Where's the problem? There's
> just dumb, Gerald, that's all. There's something comfortable about
> all being dumb, and in the same boat, in dreamland. "The owl and the
> Pussycat went to sea in a beautiful pea green boat, they took some
> money and plenty of honey, wrapped up in a five-pound note." And you
> know what? They got wet legs, and it felt teriffic, as they
> expeEerienced buoyancy on their journey. You can just see the boat,
> venturing out on the Panthalassa, and the two of them, living the life
> of Riley, sucking honey, wetting their legs, and experiencing j-hobs
> for the b-houys. "A Bhoy there!" What ship are you ...on the
> starboard side?!" It's another one, ..and they're all going round
> this Panthalassa, in orderly circles. So maybe they're not dumb,
> just intent on not rocking the boat. Or they'll all be in the
> Panthalasssa, and disappear in a "WHOOSH" of cats' fur and owl
> feathers. "Ahoy there! What have you published?" ("Jesus,
> ...what in the Name of Creation is this bearing down on us?" "What?
> Where? Christ!!! What's the latitude?" (Is it not funny?) (Flat
> mountains and [Euler] polar regions]. What a bunch. You have to hand
> it to them for their 'science in action'. They're waiting for Jo to
> write the book, so they can all be ship-shape and Bristol again.
>

Don

I have'nt seen such a wonderful expression in written language in your
manner since I read ' Finnegans Wake',the most beautiful combination
of sadness and joy,despair and hope,grief and laughter and all those
things which make us human above and beyond the color-me-grey
sensibilities that turn life to transitory fact.

" I pity your oldself I was used to. Now a younger's there.
Try not to part! Be happy, dear ones! May I be wrong! For she'll
be sweet for you as I was sweet when I came down out of me
mother. My great blue bedroom, the air so quiet, scarce a cloud.
In peace and silence. I could have stayed up there for always only.
It's something fails us. First we feel. Then we fall. And let her rain
now if she likes. Gently or strongly as she likes. Anyway let her
rain for my time is come. I done me best when I was let. Think-
ing always if I go all goes. A hundred cares, a tithe of troubles and
is there one who understands me? One in a thousand of years of
the nights? All me life I have been lived among them but now
they are becoming lothed to me. And I am lothing their little
warm tricks. And lothing their mean cosy turns. And all the
greedy gushes out through their small souls. And all the lazy
leaks down over their brash bodies. How small it's all! And me
letting on to meself always. And lilting on all the time. I thought
you were all glittering with the noblest of carriage. You're only
a bumpkin."

http://www.trentu.ca/jjoyce/fw-627.htm

>
> > "Computer-aided modeling of past plate motions is based upon some key
> > concepts of spherical and computational geometry. Plates are viewed as
> > 2-D objects having invariant shape and whose motion is constrained to
> > occur on the Earth's surface. "
> >
> > http://www.itis-molinari.mi.it/Models.html
> >
> > How,for goodness sake how do you begin modelling with the crust and
> > continental landmass already formed, this being no more than a defered
> > creationism notwithstanding that these guys are modelling off a
> > stationary Earth to boot.
> >
> > I'm sure inertia and absolute reference frames are the technical
> > currency designed to impress each other but in the absense of any
> > discussion between constant axial and variable orbital motions,no
> > mechanism for crustal development and the appearance of continental
> > landmass,it is no wonder Don is incensed.
>
> No I'm not incensed at all, ,...I think it's a great laugh, observing
> Man's folly (more amusing than observing his inhumanity, that's for
> sure). But you're right, it's really hardly believable, is it.
> They've had that telescope of Euler's to look through for as long as I
> can remember, and yet they insist on looking down the wrong end.
> What gets me is not so much that they do it, but that (apart from
> yourverygoodself and me, and JPT) they all do it. That's what I find
> most peculiar. In the name of 'Science' too ("Junk Science" - "if
> it's consensus, it ain't science") (google the string for the read)
>

It is all too easy to pass judgement unfairly or lament conditions as
they now stand,from experience in the astronomical/physics forums, the
greatest fault exists in the utter terror of making a public mistake
in an enviroment that fosters the concept of genius by imitation.There
is a whole slew of people ready to pounce and another group determined
to keep concepts muddled and all for the sake of an anonymous
consensus that goes nowhere and does nothing.

 
>
> > After ruining astronomy it
> > appears that geology will suffer the same fate and I am not opposed as
> > Don appears to be on physical development at crustal boundaries such
> > as earthquakes,volcanoes,mountain systems ect.
> >
> > Why not a hybrid division between planetary development and effects at
> > crustal boundaries without throwing the baby out with the
> > bathwater.
>
> I'm not with you here though, G. that Baby's gotta go. And the
> bathwater. All of it. And you think a hatchet job is needed in
> Astronomy? I understand there are a few people say the same about
> physics. INteresting times, but in geology we've got to go right back
> to the basic assumption on which it all hinged: The assumption that
> the earth cannot be getting bigger. It can't even be getting just a
> little bit bigger. (GPS says so!! (hah!). The geological evidence
> is for far more than Carey said. Makes you wonder if this is
> how 'stuff' does it.
>

Again,from the experience in the other forums,an enormous clash exists
between those who have been tutored to think in a singular fashion and
the dynamics of observational data.Physics and astronomy never left
the era of Newton and the idealistic tyranny that emerged to reward
those who tow the consensus line and ostracise those who don't.The
particular problem facing geology and considerations of planetary
motion affecting the development of physical surface features and the
shape of the Earth is that the conceptual notions for planetary
motions are based on Newton's peculiar astronomical outlook.I know
exactly what he did even if others don't and it is beyond shocking
whether he intentionally or unwittingly knew it himself.

>
> > Mantle convection is simply too weak to generate the effects
> > of crustal collison on physical features besides it is that rubik's
> > cube notion of the motion of continental landmass that appears to
> > concern most participants here and rightfully so.Plate tectonics goes
> > from a pretty good explanation to a horrible mess of a thing in very
> > short order when seen from the point of view of a stationary Earth and
> > unfortunately this is where the whole thing stands.
>
> Rubix Cube? It's only Pteros see it like that (Jo's fifteen
> pointer) It's an incredibly beautiful single torsional trace that the
> continent's have mapped out. But it's not moving. ...Well, not
> moving in the mantle anyway. It's growing. Yes it's moving in the
> continents - or was prior to severance - on big flat torsional loops
> (basin formation). Random independent movements? Plate tectonics?
> Uggh.
>

I could not assent to scraping everything Don for I've seen the
results of doing so in terms of astronomy and concepts of time,space
and motion back in the early 20th century.In the absense of unknown
factors such as continental landmass,crustal development and goodness
knows what else there may be some important correlation,either
terrestial or astronomical in origin, that will appear on the scene to
facilitate a more productive enviroment.When galaxies were visibly
discovered in 1923, instead of scraping concepts based on 'fixed
stars' from the previous decades,physicists and astronomers basically
took the biggest and most visibly striking structures in the cosmos
and grafted them into the 'fixed stars' models of the previous decades
and went on talking as if nothing happened.

Albert lost control of his own theories almost immediately and insofar
as he told mathematicians what they wanted to hear,they thanked him
and packed him off to New Jersey,only bringing him up to protect the
ambiguities than render 'space' with geometric properties (it does'nt
have any !) and 'time' as something that can be bottled up in a
clock.Preying on common notions of space and time,the technical
language of physics obscures the fact that men have created a cartoon
universe with spacetime no more or less valid than 'skyhook'or 'tartan
paint',non-existent qualities that appear to have existence.It does'nt
bother mathematicians for physical validity does not matter as it is
all about 'the laws of physics' but that they attempt to force it on
the unknowing general population as 'fact' is dangerous.

 
>
> > Only one thing moves slower than continental landmass and that being
> > the inability of man to adapt to obvious problems or their ability to
> > ignore them.
>
> Science is the people who do it, ...it has nothing to do with the
> 'facts'. The agenda is not science. It's 'George', ..giving
> leg-lifts. Now, within that there *IS* room for getting stroppy.
>
> (Oh, right, ..so that link you posted is Molinari.. Interesting, ..
> I used to get quite a lot of hits from Milan when I first had a
> counter on my site.. I wonder how long it will take now to dismantle
> the constant sized Earth on the basis of Euler's Theorem (at last).
> But then, ah, ..then they need to understand something about
> transforms, and how they grow, and how the ridges grow as well, and
> all of that business about transform initiation and insertion. But
> going by what Jo said, this is all earth-shatteringly boring stuff.
> Funny, I think it's quite interesting, but then I guess she used to
> teach it, and have to field questions of the sort you and I are
> asking. I would have thought it would be exciting to telling people
> stuff that's full of problems. Plenty of exciting things to talk about
> before four o'clock. Every day. Ah Jo, ...No wonder you want a
> rest! And there's Stu, .."not fighting fair" by ignoring it all.
> Since it used to work, he probably reckons it still does, Some
> weapon, when the juggernaut of the Web is bearing down on you though.
> Well, there are sites warning about cranks with messy minds that mess
> with yours. Lock up your children, before it's : "Daa-aAd?" "Not
> now Son..."
>
> Funny isn't it, how obvious it will all seem in retrospect, that the
> Earth's rotational change is encrypted in the growth of the ocean
> floors. "What's the big deal?" everyone will say. "Seems obvious".
> But the implications are mind-blowing. ( Sorry Jo, ..
> Mind-splintering.)
>

For the moment,the mystery is humanity rather than undiscovered
nature.The fear of making a mistake,the vanity that conceals rather
than reveals anything and the stony silence behind it all.I do not
single out any human being but in watching the reaction of a man who
on being told that the trade centers were being attacked did not know
how to react and waited for guidance that did not come. I don't
honestly know if anyone would fare better when a new situation
develops,the anonymity of consensus which leaves things cozy now works
against the individual even when the outlines of great advantages take
shape.

Geology is most enjoyable and I have a horror of replacing one
idealogical tyranny with another and this is where I take my stand.I
have enough respect for those who came before and did their best with
the material they had and think them in no way inferior.Those who are
and were inferior perverted genuine insights into a particular avenue
in what has to be the biggest scam ever perpetrated at the expense of
humanity and one each and every one of us pays for in our daily
existence.Never has the vitality of human investigation into celestial
phenomena burned so low as when our generation passes through even as
the biological associations and to a certain extent geological
investigations provided us with a clearer association between our life
and the greater one that encompasses our existence.

Geology and astronomy is the clashing ground,somehow people involved
with both already know it.

 
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Is there any evidence of pervious occurrences of slip of the whole
> > > > crust in relation to our liquid sphere?
> > > >
> > > The "liquid" sphere starts 2,800 km below the crust. The mantle is
> > > solid. The mantle is just deformed very slowly, like window glass, salt,
> > > ice, concrete or asphalt. No possibility of slipping.
> > >
> > > Cheers, Christof
>
> ...All of which 'convects', if you watch it long enough.

Quantcast