Re: What is this convection cell nonsense

On Aug 12, 1:23 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 8, 5:46 am, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Aug 7, 4:02 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Geophysicists indeed !, I looked at your attempts to explain the
planetary deviation from a perfect sphere by referencing the
deviation fropm the dead center of the Earth rather than using
differential rotation perpendicular to the rotational orientation of
the Earth -

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

I would easily explain how stupid it is to reference the deviation
from the 'dead center' but you lot seem intent in continuing to make
idiots of yourself and I could not be bothered addressing such a
pretensious and childrish group.

This is a very false argument, which shows how poor your model
really is. The reference point of a physical model is arbitrary, and
can not affect the conclusions. If the mathematics is done correctly,
and if valid physical conclusions are being used, the same results
should arise whether the reference point is at dead center or in
alpha centauri. The coordinate system is chosen for convenience, not
because of how right it is. If you get results that vary with
reference center, than something in your model is wrong.
Therefore, please explain how stupid it is to reference the
deviation from dead center. Of course we are a pretentious and
childish group. We include you!

The point of departure for all this is an appreciation for the
planet,its evolution and all those things which make existence
possible.The standards from which I work exist long before empiricism
and its doctrines emerged to kill intutive and intellectual
intelligence hence the apparent casual nature in which I discuss how
a common dynamic of differential rotation binds plate motion with
planetary shape betrays the enormous sorting and sifting of data nto
make the necessary correlations .The correlation between planetary
shape,the mid-Atlantic ridge and crustal evolutiion and motion exists
as a working principle rather than an isolated fact and it stops this
rubbish of misusing data to reach whatever conclusion is desired be it
'earth expansion' or 'convection cells'.

I recognise that people somehow grasp the correlation already for most
certainly the correlation between planetary shape and rotational
dynamics have existed for centuries however the idea of crustal motion
allied to rotational dynamics allows differential rotation to be
proposed as the mechanism for crustal evolution and ultimately a large
factor in the development of surface features.Like pieces of a
puzzle,the dynamics of a molten/flexible interior allows planetary
shape to fir with the component plates which profile the planetary
deviation from a perfect sphere.The mid-Atlantic ridge and its
geographical orientation somehow supports 'differential rotation
without explicitly dictating how the actual process works.That is how
I like it and am prepared to leave it.

I have people now trying to talk over my head,the original proposal is
now thrown back at me as a common assertion and although I have
little regard for the merit system it is extremely rude to have
individuals try to stumble their way through a conversation with me
without the neccessary background.









.