Re: And now for a different explanation for expansion

On Apr 27, 5:27 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 27 Apr 2007 07:39:24 -0700, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





On Apr 27, 3:13 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 27 Apr 2007 04:06:09 -0700, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Apr 26, 9:43 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2007 13:18:05 -0700, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Apr 26, 5:28 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2007 08:28:56 -0700, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Apr 26, 6:16 am, J. Taylor <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://understandearth.com/Solar%20System%20Processes.htm

http://understandearth.com/Whole-Earth%20Decompression%20Dynamics.htm

Neither the stationary Earth/convection cell mechanism or what you
propose for your expanding Earth conclusion satisfies the two largest
known geological features,the deviation of the Earth's shape profiles
by the surface fractured crust and the mid Atlantic ridge
simultaneously.

Differential rotation in the high temperature/flexible composition
satisfies both crustal motion/evolution as the major component in
surface feature development.The ee precept does nothing only attempt
to explain the geographical seperation of continents while treating
the solar system like a background puppet theatre.

Still,at least you are not stationary Earth guys like the convection
cell children.

Gerald,

Have you considered the possibility you are wrong? If so, what were
the tests used to decide the issue one way or the other?

Mr Taylor

I do not act in a manner that goes out to promote a mechanism in order
to prove somebody wrong,the differential rotation mechanism which I
promote in the high temperature/flexible interior ties togehter
crustal motion/evolution with the Earth's shape.As you will soon
discover,you have to include the 40 km deviation from a perfect sphere
as a geological feature insofar as the fractured crust profiles the
shape regardless of the underlying mechanism,as far as I am
concerned,neither the stationary Earth /convection cells mechanism or
the ee conclusion satisfies the evolution of surface features or the
planetary deviation.

If not, you need to do so. It will require assuming your position is
wrong and looking for anything which will show it.

That is falsification and it is rife in this empirical era.None of the
great advances in human civilisation let alone in the discovery of
natural phenomena can be made by people who have this convenient
clause to promote stumbing towards certainties by getting rid of
uncertainties.

Groping your way along by guesswork may be the height of fashion but
the insight by Steno on stratification and to a certain extent the
basic outlines supplied by Wegener are broad enough and dramatic
enough from previous working principles as to be enjoyable.I do not
suffer false modesty and I will tell you that the planetary deviation
from a perfect sphere indicates the rotational mechanism of the
flexible interior which in turn is the active dynamic for crustal
motion/evolution and visa versa.

I completely understand the reasons why convection cells were
introduced to explain crustal motion but they are geographically
obscure and do not take into account rotational dynamics and
orientation.It is the geological equivalent of pre-Copernican notions
and it is the way I view both the convection cell mechanism for
crustal motion while I have no regard for ee.Copernicus expresses the
deficiencies of groping your way around without an accurate wider
perspective -

" . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with
numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone
including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster
would
be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their
demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either
to
have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something
inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to
them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses
which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows
from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543

It is not the trying to make it work, but the trying to break it,
which will show its strength.

JT- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The convection cell guys have excellent data and correlations but a
lousy sub-geocentric ad hoc mechanism which actually undermines the
appreciate of crustal motion and the creation of surface features,the
ee proponents place the conclusion as a priority with little regard
for how it achieves it.

IIn taking the widest view possible,looking at the behavior of a
rotating celestial object and how a composition will behave from a
maximum speed and geographical diameter to the lowest speed where the
rotational orientation surfaces,I can determine that the Earth will be
no exception.I have used the exposed plasma of the Sun as a guide but
have yet to see somebody with enough common sense to take the widest
possible view and then apply it to the high temparture /flexible
interior perpendicular to the rotational oreintation of the Earth.

That was certainly a long winded reply, when a simple no would have
sufficed.

JT- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know,you want a feeblminded reaction from people who know no better
and are inclined to the same falsification doctrine,that way you can
pass off vacuous concepts as heated discussions among intelligent
men.Good for you,I am sure the world will stumble its way into a
mediocre conclusion all dressed up in the mediocrity of an expanding
Earth joining an expanding universe.

I already said that I do not mind what you believe,the clues to
rotational dynamics exist in the difference between a perfect sphere
and planetary deviation with the complimentary principle that it also
satisfies the mechanism for crustal motion/evolution.

Dance around it all you want, but you have not considered your
position wrong and you have no intention of doing so.

Suit yourself,if you think progress is managing to ignore a common
mechanism for crustal motion/evolution and planetary shape then good
for you.

See, this is exactly what I am talking about. In your mind it is
already an established fact, one which can only be ignored.


The Physical geography and geometry of the planet dictates that the
fractured crust profiles the shape of the Earth which has a deviation
from a perfect sphere.If you have not established that as a geological
fact then I strongly suggest that you do so.


Yes, we know rotation, but you have not established it as a common
mechanism for crustal motion/evolution.


Be definitive.The rotational dynamics are specifically differential
rotation which causes the deviation perpendicular to rotational
orientation.I have no interest in vague notions with arrows pointing
out from the center of the Earth .You have deviation from a perfect
sphere which has been known for centuries,you have rotational dynamics
which causes the deviation and this also has been known for
centuries.Now with more informed data indicating a high temperature/
flexible interior allied to the observation of other celestial objects
in motion you have differential rotation as the cause for the
deviation.If you have differential rotation there then you have the
same mechanism for crustal motion/evolution.

If you cannot keep pace with the reasoning which makes it all fit
together in outlines or wish to expunge planetary shape as a
geological feature then be my guest but that fact alone represents an
accomplishment in itself.If you have difficulties understanding that
then it is not my problem.



Based on physical considerations,it is easier to use the
observed occurence of differential rotation in a high temperature/
flexible composition to explain the planetary devaition perpendicular
to rotational orientation then try to explain it from the dead center
of the Earth as contemporary explanations are want to do.

"observed occurence of differential rotation in a high temperature/
flexible composition"

You observed it where? the Earth?


A rotating celestial object which is not solid and exists in a
gas,plasma,plastic or molten state will display differential
rotation.The Earth's interior qualifies and that dynamic influences
the motion of the fractured crust in contact with the composition
which does notr rotate as a single unit but in bands that straddle the
Equatorial diameter and move in slower bands towards the poles.

If you like you can take the differential rotation of the Sun as a
gauge for what shearing bands look like as the dynamic which is
responsible for motion of the fractured crust and its evolution on
Earth -

http://www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk/distance/strobel/starsun/strsuna_files/sun-rotation.gif

Don't bother me with an expanding Earth mechanism which has no way to
incorporate the basic geological feature of planetary shape.






The complimentary addition to a more accurate treatment based on
differential rotation is that it also provides the mechanism for
crustal motion and evolution.Take it or leave it.

You first need to establish differential rotation on the Earth before
you can provide anything.


I need to establish nothing,what I do need are people with common
sense and a healthy regard fior the physical considerations involved.

What you need is to get out of a classroom atmosphere and direct your
attention to productive avenues rather than trying to make youraself
feel better at the expense of the stationary Earth/convection cells
guys.



If you can/do then you get to use it as a mechanism.



It is not about falsification, it is about removing blinders which
will not allow you to see it any other way.

I am sure your stationary Earth/convection cell counterparts are
thinking exactly the same thing.

Do not know the Earth is expanding, do not know how it could happen if
it did. All I know is there are three distinct piece of evidence from
the ocean floor which are in agreement that show expansion, the fit of
continental margins, the pattern from the age of the ocean crust, and
transform faults.

Any explanation which can produce these results as well as expansion
will be accepted. Have applied plate tectonics to the pattern from
the age of the ocean crust, transform faults, and not only find it
inadequate, but lacking in even the capability to produce the position
and location of either.

In conclusion, I am not saying this proves expansion, far from it, I
am saying any explanation MUST include these three items.





Do I think you are wrong? Do not know, have not been very successful
in figuring out what you are talking about.

No doubt you will perfectly 'understand' the empirical explanation
for the planetary deviation based on a vague arrow pointing out from
the center of the Earth -

http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Srotfram1.htm

The more accurate view is to look at other rotating objects with a
flexible composition,either due to the nature of the composition
itself , high temperatures or both.I give the example of the Sun and
differential rotation perpedicular to the rotational orientation but
there seems to be some mental block in making the correlation between
rotation and shape -

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: And now for a different explanation for expansion
    ... propose for your expanding Earth conclusion satisfies the two largest ... to prove somebody wrong,the differential rotation mechanism which I ... discover,you have to include the 40 km deviation from a perfect sphere ... Founder of the True Geology ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: And now for a different explanation for expansion
    ... propose for your expanding Earth conclusion satisfies the two largest ... crustal motion/evolution with the Earth's shape.As you will soon ... discover,you have to include the 40 km deviation from a perfect sphere ... Yes, we know rotation, but you have not established it as a common ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: And now for a different explanation for expansion
    ... propose for your expanding Earth conclusion satisfies the two largest ... crustal motion/evolution with the Earth's shape.As you will soon ... discover,you have to include the 40 km deviation from a perfect sphere ... rotation is all it takes to move the continents, ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: And now for a different explanation for expansion
    ... propose for your expanding Earth conclusion satisfies the two largest ... to prove somebody wrong,the differential rotation mechanism which I ... crustal motion/evolution with the Earth's shape.As you will soon ... discover,you have to include the 40 km deviation from a perfect sphere ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: And now for a different explanation for expansion
    ... propose for your expanding Earth conclusion satisfies the two largest ... to prove somebody wrong,the differential rotation mechanism which I ... crustal motion/evolution with the Earth's shape.As you will soon ... discover,you have to include the 40 km deviation from a perfect sphere ...
    (sci.geo.geology)