Re: Geostationary or rotational dynamics

On Feb 29, 5:58 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article
<f019983e-16ec-4c6a-bb97-766ebdec1...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,





 oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 29, 6:35 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article
<ef92719e-3e1e-4f48-b22b-1d47b0c86...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

 oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 28, 9:28 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article
<27fb3978-d116-4c54-aa1d-8901b176e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
The rub is that you cannot speak of planetary shape
without discussing differential rotation let alone the implications
as
the underlying mechanism for crustal motion

As I said, you're free to show your measurements of how much
differential rotation there is and how much you think it's affecting
surface crustal motion.

Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." <ETH>Chris L.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am being honest when I implore you to stick with what you know and
don't bother with planetary shape and differential rotation.Probably a
good dynamicist would recognise that equatorial speed and differential
rotation in not enough by itself to conclude affects on the shape of a
rotating celestial objects but variations in Equatorial speed or
differential rotation or shape is enough to combine all as a set of
generalised dynamical rules.

But you're not a good dynamicist. You haven't the foggiest notion of how
to calculate the effects of the Earth's rotation on its soggy insides.

You,as representative of a geostationary view, design the internal
structure,composition and viscosity of the Earth to support convection
cells whereas the alternative rotational mechanism requires a
different set of criteria,It would be an enjoyable challenge based on
the generalised dynamics,planetary shape owing to the composition and
viscosity of the moltern interior,evolution of surface features and so
on.

Well, then. Let's see it.

That is why many would be reluctant to promote 'convection cells'
nowadays insofar as the internal mechanism dictates so much.You want
to remain with your limited view then that is fine but as I said to
Brad,why would I care to hear of a geostationary Earth point of view..

I'm not  trying to tell you about a geostationary point of view. I'm
asking you to illustrate, with some reasonable scientific analysis, your
differential rotation model.

I don't believe that Earth's rotation has a significant effect on
crustal motion, but I could be convinced otherwise with good data and
theory. But you've never presented any, so why should I change my mind?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ÐChris L.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good luck now, have fun with the geostationary  convection cells and
the 'soggy' inside that goes with it and that is my final response to
you and all others who need convincing or geological
breastfeeding.When an adult shows up to discuss the matter  then I
will  demonstate how to use stellar rotational dynamics to correlate
with spherical deviation and then apply it to this planet.

You silly sod. I don't believe you, therefore you will not try to
convince me.

I do not know if many or any  can follow the basic outlines which link
stellar dynamics to spherical deviation as a general principle ,from
there to the Earth's spherical deviation and from then into the
internal mechanism which links shape with crustal motion

Because you've never presented it.

but you seem
happy with your thermally generated convection cells so I am not going
to contend with people who enjoy these things and nobody should expect
me to.

Well, you're right. Nobody should expect you to come up with any  
evidence, theory, or prediction for your hypothesis. Excepting of
course, anyone whom you expect to convince that things are so.

Take care now and do your best with what you believe in,just like Brad
who at least  made an attempt to promote convection,something I would
not care to be convinced of.If the situation was only a fraction
right,this matter would have generated some discussion over the years
it has been on the table but obviously there is some great attraction
to keeping the motions of the Earth out of geological affects or
rather,the dull reasoning of people who have no feeling for
astronomy,geology and it appears,very little else.In any case,I rarely
complain of external circumstances and when people are ready to
discuss something they already know then something productive can
happen.

Remember now,the internal mechanism  for crustal motion dictates the
internal composition and that is why this is important and must be
addressed.

Okay, then. It is important. Address it. Show us! Present your data!
Present your theory!

And above all, quit whining about how no one will believe something that
you refuse to explain!

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My good man,I spent the last few months showing how the Equatorial
ring of Uranus changes with respect to the Sun ,turning a full 360
degrees over the course of an annual orbit demonstrating a new
orbital component and when applied to the Earth explains variations in
daylight/darkness North and South of the Equator and so on -

http://asymptotia.com/wp-images/2007/08/uranus_rings.jpg

If you cannot grasp a motion that you can see,there is hardly a chance
you will grasp the motions going on beneath your feet.

Stick with what you know whether it is a variable tilting Earth to the
orbital plane , geostationary convection cells or whatever you want
as you are not being offensive by what you believe.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Geostationary or rotational dynamics
    ... the underlying mechanism for crustal motion ... differential rotation there is and how much you think it's ... Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Geostationary or rotational dynamics
    ... without discussing differential rotation let alone the implications as ... the underlying mechanism for crustal motion ... stellar dynamics to spherical deviation,from there to the Earth's ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Ask a guru a question
    ... To say that the rotation of the earth has an effect on crustal motion is ... dynamics of planetary shape with tectonic activity under a common ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Geostationary or rotational dynamics
    ... the underlying mechanism for crustal motion ... differential rotation there is and how much you think it's affecting ... anyone whom you expect to convince that things are so. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Geostationary or rotational dynamics
    ... without discussing differential rotation let alone the implications as ... the underlying mechanism for crustal motion ... will demonstate how to use stellar rotational dynamics to correlate ...
    (sci.geo.geology)