Re: Geological doctorates


don findlay wrote:

> 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. .

Don

Again,differential rotation bands and their influence in generating the
Earth's shape and the motion of the crustal plates returns to being a
private work and people are free to attach what they will to it
regardless of what I may feel.

There is always a crucial period where a balance exists on whether the
mechanism would be grafted in and I have rightly pointed out that the
convection cells/stationary Earth mechanism would be retained in favor
of the much more significant dynamics of differential rotation.

You cannot seperate convection cells from a stationary Earth for in
their system,heat is the dynamic for driving plate motion whereas
differential rotation bands rely on the Earth's astronomical motion to
generate not just tectonic motion but the profile of those plates which
follow the deviation from a perfect sphere.

If a doctor cannot analyse a celestial object rotating and apply the
lessons to a rotating Earth then it matters little what follows,in this
respect an expanding earth is no better or worse than convections cells
on a stationary Earth.I hope you appreciate why answering objections to
both adherents is a horrible way to treat the insight of a common
mechanism for crustal motion and the Earth's shape.

You can taunt the guys that their convection cells have no dynamics
other than heat while knowing,even vaguely,that the Earth's rotation
supplies the basis for how the component plates follow the Earth's
shape.Sad to think that this means that you have the upper hand in
this matter notwithstanding that differential rotation in the mantle
would never support either EE or convection cells/stationary Earth
models due to its dynamics and its geometric/geographical consequences.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is this convection cell nonsense
    ... Its called torque. ... What he is probably saying is that the convective cell motion, ... decomposed to include a large "differential rotation" component. ... convection cells have finite width AUTOMATICALLY makes horizontal ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Geostationary or rotational dynamics
    ... differential rotation there is and how much you think it's ... surface crustal motion. ... The axis of the rings does not change ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Geostationary or rotational dynamics
    ... differential rotation there is and how much you think it's ... surface crustal motion. ... The axis of the rings does not change ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Plate Tectonics Information
    ... there is a good  reason to believe that differential rotation is ... aversion to rotational dynamics and there is nothing I can do about ... differential rotation and forget coriolis forces for a while - ... Here is what you do,stick with your geostationary convection cells ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Geostationary or rotational dynamics
    ... motion is to argue against differential rotation as the mechanism for ... distinction  transfers to crustal/evolution and motion via the ... Earth is preferable to a rotating one and in futures they are ... convection and differential rotation on Earth. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)