Re: Geological doctorates


oriel36 wrote:
> don findlay wrote:
> > oriel36 wrote:
> >
> > > A doctor known as Stuart has come out in support of convection cells
> > > and I admire his misguided courage in standing up for his belief in a
> > > public forum even if it means he has to ignore the largest known
> > > geological feature -the shape of the Earth.
> > >
> > > That takes some feat for a person who has only a casual interest in
> > > developmental; geology never mind people who call themselves 'doctors'.
> >
> > Come of it, Gerald. Stuart's not a doctor, I wouldn't let him near me
> > if he was. ...he's a Big Dakine (check your dictionary, but as usual
> > he can't spell. Or maybe he is and it's the dictionary that can't, ..
> > that's dropped the 'e'). Big Dakins claim authority by dint of the
> > lint they cover up, and the prose of the nose they exude. You don't
> > think for a minute he believes in convection cells do you? He's only
> > intent on cover-up, dropping names and telling people he can read books
> > and fill his head up with stuff. Which is convenient, because it saves
> > the need for space to think about things. Wonkernoddly say Stuart is a
> > great thingkuh, though he purports to know stuff. I'll bet he knows
> > enough numbers to be able to answer that question in the image you put
> > to him about convecction cells - that one with slabs of crust that look
> > like the Titanic going down. The only question is whether he can get
> > them in the right order.
>
> To Don
>
> There are times when you are just plain funny and were it not that some
> of these guys and their ideas are so dull I would gladly just enjoy
> your creative judgements on their conceptions and institutional
> shortcomings.It is one thing to have a poor notion like a convection
> cells/stationary Earth mechanism and wrap it up in abtruse technical
> jargon with the equally poor notion of EE but you throw so many things
> at it to get it to work and I know only too well the consequences of
> taking shortcuts as much as I do bluffing and blustering..

It's just giving reasons why I think what I do. For EE and against PT.
All this mob can do is cite "arithmetic" and add hominems. They're a
joke.


> It would appear that you could maintain a convection cells/stationary
> Earth mechanism for crustal motion as long as the shape of the planet
> is ignored .It puts a severe strain on the imagination to see the
> fractured crust contain the enormous mantle in convection cells models
> rather than a more comfortable notion of the component plates sitting
> on the mantle and allowing the differential rotation bands to act on
> the fractured crust.

I still don't see why you think you need plates in your model. It's
only a matter of time till Plate Tectonics drops them. With their new
structural map out, nasa already hints that's on the agenda.


> There is no endgame here,it is a matter of which mechanism is easier to
> work with and the availible avenues it opens up.As convection cells
> emerged as a specific ad hoc mechanism to explain crustal motion it
> does little else whereas differential rotation bands in the molten
> mantle has the distinct advantage of grafting astronomical principles
> such as the Earth's rotation as a developmental geological influence .

I'm with you this one, if you limit it to the power of one - the
differential offset of the nothern and southern hemispheres. You could
argue maybe that it's expressed in the trace of the transforms like
here:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/drivel.html
but you're going to run up against the mechanics of growth of the
ocean floors, which is difficult to fit with differential *rotation*
bands, because these transforms are vertical growth faults, not (as
Plate Tectonics has it) strike-slip faults. They shoot themselves in
both feet over beachballs with *that* one. Google up anything to do
with "How transforms form" and see just how little they know about
these. They have no explanation for them whatsoever - which after half
a century is saying something, when the obvious is staring them in the
face.


> That Don is quite an enormous leap and I could go no further than
> presenting the contrast between the conventional mechanism which is
> meant to explain crustal motion with the enormous one bearing in on
> it,using the Earth's motion to generate the planet's shape and
> simultaneously move the component plates.

The first-order oblateness being left out of their picture is
unbelievable. Stuart's got some numbers, and BigAl carries the back of
an envelope round with him like six guns. Let's see what they come up
with. NUTHIN' I bet.


> I am dull in my apprehension of being labelled one thing or another for
> those who would investigate developmental geology have natural
> observation to guide them rather the filtering things through anything
> I say.This is why I can't compete with EE or convection
> cells/stationary Earth adherents for to answer objections and explain
> the conceptual shortcomings of both would dilute the impact of actually
> considering differential rotation bands in the mantle and allow it to
> dictate what works and what does not.

I think I understand completely what you're saying on that score, but
we have to be guided (in the first instance) by the geology as we know
it. Picking up Earth expansion resets the entirety of geology, and
when you see it through that new perspective *ANYTHING* becomes
possible. It might be hard to believe, but the first-order structures
of the planet *in the crust* (and probably a lot in the mantle) remain
to be identified, when there might well arise something of the sort
analogous to what you're talking about. But it's in rocky rock, and
we'd therefore expect it to have a different expression than what we
see in the sun's plasma. Exactly what I'm not sure, because seeing the
planet as growing in size tends to take away from the differential
rotational bands you're talking about. The continental margins stand
out because of the contrast with the mantle, but there are surely
others.


> That I witness these geological doctorates willfully ignore the
> shape of the planet and its underlying mechanism should spur others to
> just go ahead and adjust the components derived from the Sun's rotation
> as a guide to planetary dynamics in the mantle.If these doctorates want
> to appeal to plasma vs mantle then they certainly have missed the point
> regarding the common mechanism for the Earth's shape and crustal
> motion.

The ramifications of oblateness v. sphericity are mindboggling for the
dynamics of the planet. Reading up on centrifugal force, I'm surprised
to see there are some questions there from a physics point of view.
You'd think somebody with a few numbers and/or the back of an envelope
might contribute something to a discussion on that one, but fat chance:
there we see the nature of real scientists when it comes to patch
protection. .

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Geological doctorates
    ... >> A doctor known as Stuart has come out in support of convection cells ... Stuart's not a doctor, I wouldn't let him near me ... fractured crust contain the enormous mantle in convection cells models ... on the mantle and allowing the differential rotation bands to act on ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Shrinking Earth
    ... > Stuart wrote: ... >>> heliocentricity abolished their existence.Same for convection cells. ... >>> Earth's mantle generates the mechanism for the planet's shape and ... THere are no differential rotation bands in the mantle. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Geological doctorates
    ... > A doctor known as Stuart has come out in support of convection cells ... > geological feature -the shape of the Earth. ... Stuart's not a doctor, I wouldn't let him near me ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Shrinking Earth
    ... >> heliocentricity abolished their existence.Same for convection cells. ... >> Earth's mantle generates the mechanism for the planet's shape and ... differential rotation bands in the mantle and especially the deviation ... Here is you explanation for crustal motion - ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Shrinking Earth
    ... > mechanism for the Earth's shape and the motion of the component plates ... > between convection cells in the mantle and differential rotation bands ... > a corner and will adopt convection cells. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
Loading