Re: Small tutorial on gr
From: Oriel36 (geraldkelleher_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/07/04
- Next message: A11otrios: "Re: New book identifies Ireland as Atlantis"
- Previous message: Jonathan: "Finding life elsewhere, Nasa's goal is Pure!"
- In reply to: don findlay: "Re: Small tutorial on gr"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 7 Aug 2004 04:54:27 -0700
don@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.0408040756.20335ddc@posting.google.com>...
> geraldkelleher@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.0408030603.5e7f1d53@posting.google.com>...
> > It was only a matter of time before the fabrication known as general
> > relativity made its appearance in sci.geology.A brief tutorial now
> > follows with the assumption that the reader will understand the point
> > of view in historical as well as conceptual context.
> >
> > Historical context -
> >
> > It is 1920 and four years after general relativity made its
> > appearance.The originator of the concept presents a stroll through the
> > relativistic concept for the average reader,detailing why he thought
> > space was curved.
> >
> > In 1920,the only known galaxy is the Milky Way,as far as people in
> > that era are concerned there are no galactic stellar islands which we
> > take for granted through modern powerful telescopes.In 1923,Hubble
> > identified a galaxy external to our own therefore Albert is writing at
> > a time when his view on the stars is not much different than Newton.
> >
> > So what does Albert have to say. -
> >
> > "If we ponder over the question as to how the universe, considered as
> > a whole, is to be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to
> > us is surely this: As regards space (and time) the universe is
> > infinite. There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter,
> > although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average
> > everywhere the same. In other words: However far we might travel
> > through space, we should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed
> > stars of approximately the same kind and density.
> > This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
> > theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
> > in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
> > outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
> > diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
> > infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a
> > finite island in the infinite ocean of space.
> > This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less
> > satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by
> > the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are
> > perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
> > without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
> > nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
> > gradually but systematically impoverished."
> >
> > http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html
> >
> > The first paragraph,as expected, does not factor in the stellar
> > islands known as galaxies,it stands to reason insofar as they have yet
> > to be visibly discovered (1923).
> >
> > The second paragraph actually rejects the notion of galaxies insofar
> > as we now know of finite stellar islands where the population of
> > stars decrease outwards along the spiral arms and eventually
> > ceases,again,Albert does not know any better.
> >
> >
> > So what reason did Albert give for curving space,well that is the
> > third paragraph.He laments that light passing out of stars is going to
> > waste so he decides to curve light passing out of stars and therefore
> > curving the Universe along with it.
> >
> > This small tutorial is not meant as an attack on the concepts of the
> > early 20th century but if a geologist would stray into the
> > astronomical territory and consider planetary astronomical motions for
> > geological purposes he is faced with a wall of relativistic linguistic
> > fireworks that conceal the reasons why Albert thought space was curved
> > and in his own words.Not one person should be frightened in
> > approaching the 1920 text and indeed it is perfectly readable but what
> > we now know of galaxies would make that text an assault on the eyes
> > for 21st century readers.
>
> There is a similar wall of obfuscation that meets anyone learning
> about plate tectonics. A zone of Earthquakes in a slab of crust
> showing faster travel times... gets transposed to a 'subducting
> plate', so that 'subduction' is then a 'fact'.
Don
I am aware of the delicate situation that exists in considering the
influence of astronomical motions on the shape of the Earth and the
reasonable indication of the development of physical surface features
by the same origin.
The small tutorial on gr was designed to demonstrate the dangers of
creating a monolithic concept based on the most spurious of
premises,while having no astronomical or geometric basis,it is
presented as a human achievement when even a cursory glance at the
outlines of the concept mark it down as an idea that approaches
insanity.Simply stated,Albert lamented that light leaving stars was
going to waste so he bent the path of light to create a curved
universe and created scaffolding based on mathematical topology which
amounts to making 2D imagery look like 3D reality.
Enough of that for the moment save that the elements of truth in the
idea of the influence of astronomical rotations and crustal
development (volume increase) is being short-circuited.
When the idea of 'Earth expansion' is being presented,the only element
which can be considered reasonable is the development of crustal
volume from the tranfer of material from the denser mantle to lighter
crust,while this feature is indeed new in terms of planetary evolution
it would be entirely worthless if it was proposed as an increase in
the overall mass of the planet.The objection to 'Earth expansion' as a
term is that if taken as an increase in a total equatorial radius
without qualifying how that increase in radius is determined,people
are bound to be repulsed.The increase in girth of the planet is fairly
small as a proportion of the total radius taken from the central core
to the surface but it is there,no doubt about that.
'Torsion' is an altogether different matter and does indeed strain the
imagination.The rotational factors which not only affect the shape of
the Earth but affect the development of Earthquakes,volcanoes, ect are
also present but this time the main obstacle is with the astronomical
format for determining how the affects are assigned depending on which
rotation is being discussed.
For example,in discussing the effects of the Earth's rotation on the
development of a hurricane there is no need to appeal to orbital
motion except as a minor seasonal factor in different
hemispheres.Similarily,there is no great need to determine why
elliptical motion occurs if the material relates to the influence of
the lack of axial and orbital equilibrium as the Earth moves through
its annual orbit.
And they cite the
> tomography as 'proof'. The worrying thing is they don't do it
> deliberately, they really do think that's what it means and that right
> is on their side - even though in the same breath they talk about
> "overriding". They don't seem to register that on a rotating earth
> in which decoupling between the crust and the mantle is well-accepted
> - by them - that "overriding" could be due to exactly that decoupling.
> Even as they accept the equatorial bulge as due to the rota5tion of
> the Earth they say in the same breath that the Earth's rotation is 27
> zeros of insignificance in any picture of deformation. There's even a
> parallel thread here that's saying that 'Ellipsoidal' is the natural
> state of gravitational affairs!
To consider why elliptical motion occurs you step up to the next
rotation which is the motion of the Sun and planets around the
galactic axis.Elliptical motion is a consequence of the tendency of
the motion of the planets about the Sun to maintain a circular orbit
and simultaneously their motion (along with the Sun) about the
galactic axis which would tend to vary it from circular motion as the
planets move with galactic orbital motion and against it.
Take it further and step up to the next rotation and then you are into
modelling galactic structure and motion and why galaxies look like
hurricanes
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/m51_hurricane.gif
The temptation is there to close the loop between rotations as they
apply to the creation of hurricanes and its astronomical
equivalent,even as very loose analogies, but unfortunately I live in
an era of 'us' and them',namecalling and namedropping,pretension and
unwarranted vanity and all the worse traits of human existence.
It's exactly the same myopia that
> ignores the shocks that level cities, but attends to the minute
> whispering movements as representative of what's "really going on".
> If they're obfuscated in their own minds, what chance has anyone got
> of being communicated anything of worth by this sort of logic?
If this posting seems harsh it is no less harsh than the demands I
place on myself.As the idea of volume increase and rotational elements
are concerned,I appreceate that they can be set aside and as far as I
can tell,the active physical formations at crustal boundaries may need
modification but not by much.The mechanism for crustal motion appears
too weak as it is currently formatted by convection cells which is why
it is easier to move on to astronomical considerations.
The delicate situation is that geologists proabably do appreceate the
elements of truth in rotational and volume increase factors but not in
the way you have them formatted.In that vacuum you will have the
appearance of the relativistic gravitational guys with their attending
terminology of 'reference frames'and goodness knows what else
rendering the area of geology as remote from humanity as they have
rendered astronomy.For a while they will pay lip service to geologists
who do really care and then turn them into stool pidgeons for their
own agendas,you have already witnessed the gr participant testing the
geological waters and the chances are you will see more of them.
- Next message: A11otrios: "Re: New book identifies Ireland as Atlantis"
- Previous message: Jonathan: "Finding life elsewhere, Nasa's goal is Pure!"
- In reply to: don findlay: "Re: Small tutorial on gr"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
