Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth

From: J. Taylor (jota_at_gorge.NOSPAM.net)
Date: 12/25/04 

Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:51:59 -0800

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:46:29 GMT, "George"
<george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:

>
>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>news:m79ns0599nmt6o8iiq0vcgj9qoqs42trpc@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:06:38 GMT, "george"
>> <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>news:n9cgs0tckslse5a9j8pcedr01atqmdicap@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 05:08:39 GMT, "george"
>>>> <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:hq9fs0tb50jj5i1pujvupvvk0vbn7p4v75@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On 21 Dec 2004 04:21:02 GMT, bigdakine@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine)
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth
>>>>>>>>From: J. Taylor jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net
>>>>>>>>Date: 12/20/04 5:43 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>>>>>>>Message-id: <073fs0l3r6u5pqfbal70fntha3b8p9e6u3@4ax.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 20 Dec 2004 21:06:59 GMT, bigdakine@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine)
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth
>>>>>>>>>>From: J. Taylor jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net
>>>>>>>>>>Date: 12/20/04 2:59 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>>>>>>>>>Message-id: <g9hds0tamcc26pegqld5pt9jb3p9tjq70q@4ax.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:01:25 GMT, "george"
>>>>>>>>>><george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:jn4cs0dkove8bat8s5obd5s12igtadhnt7@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:10:49 GMT, "george"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:ouabs0teh3j9ion21342hqccr4lukn3ip9@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:38:52 -0700, Greg Campbell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nospam@null.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ian Harvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting.....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://sciencewa.net.au/science_news.asp?pg=21&NID=81
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Too bad the "article" doesn't actually say anything....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It sounds as if it was lifted out of a supermarket tabloid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Outlining a rational theory as to HOW the earth gains mass, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>providing some manner of physical evidence to support the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>existence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that mechanism just might help a wee bit, ya think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The planets spin on their axis, Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is the mechanism?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The most important question, how do we know they spin, since we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know of a mechanism?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Simple answer? Angular momentum. Try taking a physics class. You
>>>>>>>>might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>learn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, given your understanding of the mechanics, as long as you know
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> mass you can predict the spin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do tell, I always welcome the chance to learn especially something
>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>> simple.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> JT
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The earth spins because the cloud of dust and gas from which it formed
>>>>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>spinning, and has kept on spinning because of angular momentum. Proof
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>>>>is the case, among other evidence, comes from present day analysis of
>>>>>>>>>>>dust
>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>gas clouds around other stars, such as Beta Pictoris.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Alright, it is always fun to learn. Now, which direction was the
>>>>>>>>>>cloud spinning, like Venus, Earth or Uranus?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>State any reason why Venus, Earth or Uranus must retain the spin
>>>>>>>>>direction
>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>the solar nebula?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am not arguing they must. The question is what was the orginal spin
>>>>>>>>direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Who cares? I mean you can always ask a question. But I don't see any
>>>>>>>scientific
>>>>>>>imperative behind this one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? Then how do you know the the change which gives the present?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If the planets formed by accretion would not the impact determine the
>>>>>>>>spin and does not it seem a bit odd the impact was more to one side
>>>>>>>>than another,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Where do you come up with this "more to one side than the other" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It stands to reason, where the energy for the momentum is imparted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever play pool? Billiards?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for the majority of the planets, which would match the
>>>>>>>>original spin of the dust cloud?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm sorry, but your question as stated does not make sense to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the you view the Solar System so the Earth's North is up, the
>>>>>> majority of the planets revolve clockwise and so does their rotation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Accreation is about gravitation attraction. The impact of the objects
>>>>>> will give angular momentum by where the hit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Does the expression "Edxternal Torque" mean anything to you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, caught your correction on the other post.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is about the spin being outside the object being spun,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>THe planets form within a spinning nebula. As they form they extract
>>>>>>>angular
>>>>>>>momentum from the nebula.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if the spin hits opposite it counter acts the momentum and it
>>>>>> subtracts, but this assumes the hit is either to the right or left.
>>>>>> It is possible the impact could be either, high or low.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>and is so
>>>>>>>>interesting you would bring it up, since you continue to hold whatever
>>>>>>>>started the spin is the only factor ever to be a part of the spin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Funny. I never said any such thing. I distinctly said, give me the angular
>>>>>>>momentum of a body, its external torques and I can compute the subsequent
>>>>>>>history of its rotational kinematics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You argue tidal rhythmites are representative of an angular momentum
>>>>>> which is unchanged from the orginal formation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JT
>>>>>
>>>>>No, he and many others argue that tidal rhytmites are proof that the earth's
>>>>>spin hasn't change much since they were laid down.
>>>>
>>>> Look at this way, for me there is evidence which appears inconsistent
>>>> with Earth expansion, then there is evidence which seems to be only
>>>> explained by an expanding Earth. Now the options, to remain
>>>> resolutely faithful to a beloved theory, or just deny the evidence, or
>>>> look for alternate explanations.
>>>>
>>>>>Certainly not enough to
>>>>>account for whatever pipe dream you care to explore with regard to "earth
>>>>>Expansion".
>>>>
>>>> George, your being a mental midget is also a fact you wish to deny.
>>>>
>>>> Something about being incompetent and being unaware of it.
>>>>
>>>> JT
>>>
>>>Oh, and I noticed that you didn't have an answer to my earlier response to
>>>your
>>>post where you asked "Alright, it is always fun to learn. Now, which
>>>direction
>>>was the cloud spinning, like Venus, Earth or Uranus?"
>>>
>>>To which I responded:
>>>
>>>"Let me elaborate on that, since you insist. The nubula conditions result in
>>>an
>>>initial spin. For rocky planets, once the planet has taken on significant
>>>mass,
>>>the rotation of those rocky planets with dense atmospheres - such as the Earth
>>>and Venus - is determined by atmospheric tides, gravitational forces, friction
>>>between the mantle and the crust, and the 'obliquity' angle between the
>>>planet's
>>>equator and the plane of its orbit around the Sun.
>>>
>>>Correia and Laskar calculated the motion of such planets for a wide range of
>>>initial conditions. "We found that, due to the presence of the dense
>>>atmosphere,
>>>the rotation can only end in four possible spin states", Laskar told
>>>PhysicsWeb.
>>>Such planets can have either retrograde or 'prograde' rotation - that is, the
>>>west-to-east rotation commonplace in the solar system - and their rotation
>>>axis
>>>may or may not have flipped during its evolution. We know that Venus has
>>>retrograde rotation, but has its rotation axis switched?
>>>
>>>For the rotation axis of Venus to flip, Correia and Laskar calculated that the
>>>planet's equator must once have been strongly tilted compared with the plane
>>>of
>>>its orbit around the Sun - that is, it must have had a high obliquity.
>>>Although
>>>this widely accepted idea is still possible, Correia and Laskar calculated
>>>that
>>>chaotic behaviour in the atmosphere of Venus could have slowed and then
>>>reversed
>>>the rotation of Venus - and in this scenario Venus need not have had a high
>>>initial obliquity. "Most initial conditions will drive the spin of Venus
>>>towards
>>>its present state, but through two very different evolutionary paths", says
>>>Laskar.
>>>
>>>Whether the rotation axis of Venus did switch in the past depends upon its
>>>initial rotation period, according to Correia and Laskar. Their simulations
>>>suggest that the axis would only have flipped if Venus was spinning very
>>>quickly. If it had a slow initial spin, the reversal in rotation probably
>>>arose
>>>purely from atmospheric and internal phenomena. Correia and Laskar believe
>>>their
>>>simulations will be useful in studies of newly discovered planets beyond the
>>>solar system.
>>>
>>>NASA evidence indicates that Uranus has likely been knocked on its side
>>>relative
>>>to the other planets by an impact with another celestial body. The fact that
>>>it
>>>has a debris ring that is also tilted in the same direction as it's rotation
>>>axis is strong evidence for this."
>>>
>>>
>>>Well? No response???
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is little to say, it is a good sequence of reasoning. It does
>> have the weakness of beginning with a condition , which seems
>> probable, then works through the known possible outcomes.
>>
>> It does not preclude other beginnings which have other factors which
>> change the outcome and have not been discovered.
>
>Science cannot work with what is unknown. We can only work with factors that we
>can see and hear, and taste, and feel, and hear, or sense with the various
>apparatus that have been invented to discern known phenomenon. We leave belief
>in the "unknown" to the religions and their dogma.
>
>> My questioning the beginning condition and the factors of change are
>> the outcome we see.
>
>Whatever that means.
>
>> IF we accept the continents move, there are only three possibilities.
>>
>> All the continents are moving together.
>>
>> All the continents are moving apart.
>>
>> Some continents are moving together, some are moving apart.
>>
>> There is a range of rates for all, but the evidence gathered will
>> either fall into one and only one of the outcomes. It does not mean
>> any category will be final, but will depend upon what we see as the
>> evidence.
>>
>> The evidence will need to conform to things we also know, such as
>> length, width, height, and time, and are so basic they must be
>> answered before any category can be determined to be the one which
>> excludes all others.
>>
>> There are many features on the whole Earth which point to an increase
>> in area, from a larger radius to make them fit.
>
>Wrong.
>
>> There is also evidence which indicates an increase in area from an
>> increased radius does not fit.
>
>Wrong.

Your excellence, I humbly beg forgiveness, from one, such as your
self, the all knowing.

>
>> Which all suggest, we do not know enough to hold one category is the
>> definitive.
>
>Wrong.
>
>> You can take one position as being the answer, but for myself it is
>> not what I think of as science, but rather religion.
>
>Bhwhahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!. Coming from a person who holds EE as a valid
>theory, I find that comment rather ironic.
>

You would!

>> In addition, your lack of ability to see evidence does not equate to
>> the lack of it.
>
>Instead of trying to provide "real" evidence to prove his "theory", he turns the
>situation around and projects his incompetence of data on everyone else.
>Typical lamster response. Are you a hoser, or what? What exactly are you,
>anyway?
>

Oh boy! George, you should get out more, the Neverland routine is
lacking even in comic value.

Either the images NASA and NOAA are from another planet, or you are
not even bothering to look at them, and would explain a lot.

JT

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Attacks on philosophy by scientists
    ... This is a warped form of reasoning. ... ever had considered the the continents could be moving. ... provided evidence that there were some strange coincidences involved. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... You claim that there is one pattern which allows the continents to ... with evidence that it is so. ... claiming the lack of this evidence as support they never fit together. ... I am not saying EE is true, I am saying the pattern on the ocean floor ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Attacks on philosophy by scientists
    ... the evidence was insufficient to convince them of continental drift. ... This didn't stop the orthodox community from accepting Darwinian ... fetched than imagining continents to move. ... Your analogy with Darwin is very off the mark. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Attacks on philosophy by scientists
    ... the evidence was insufficient to convince them of continental drift. ... fetched than imagining continents to move. ... drift and Wegener was given proper recognition. ... Direct observation showed the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Attacks on philosophy by scientists
    ... Orthodox science of the time also didn't have a mechanism. ... was no need to postulate a mechanism for "the continents ... It is my hypothesis these data are evidence for continental ... drift, which explains the lot" And you say, "Your data is mere ...
    (talk.origins)