Re: Geostationary or rotational dynamics



Timberwoof wrote:

In article
<f019983e-16ec-4c6a-bb97-766ebdec1d42@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@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." �Chris 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.

Correct. Belief comes from within, not without. History is littered
with the carcasses of those who tried to convince others, ..beginning
with that silly geezer who started a fashion for Crown of Thorns.

You're an idiot, woof. Believe it or not as you like, but that's what
you are.


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!

The architecture of spin impressed on planetary geology may be found
at :-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/
..it's very simple. Oriel's showing you the way as well. If you were
thinking about it, you'd have a question. But this indiscriminate
noisy hollering for "show us your data, show us your data !" shows
you're not thinking about it at all, nor have any intention of doing
so. So wallow in your ignorance. (At least Stuart asks for some
cardboard... )
.

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
    ... 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)
  • Re: Geological doctorates
    ... >> Earth mechanism for crustal motion as long as the shape of the planet ... >> 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: 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)
Quantcast