Re: A better working principle

In article
<4af2dcc4-dcd3-4141-90d8-5018eb4470d0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 19, 4:12 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article
<f18f3f94-92e9-480f-ae23-d059ea590...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,





 oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have nothing to say to guys who believe in an ee concept that makes
a flat Earth look intelligent,I have much to say to plate tectonics
guys who are dragging those great outlines into a similar situation
by
ignoring geodynamics.It is almost harder to ignore geodynamics than to
take it into account in respect to geological evolutionary influences
but so far,I have the distinct and unpleasant feeling that the
trajectory of reasoning  is now lost ,a reasoning which uses stellar
dynamics to generalise rotational principles and apply them to the
Earth first and then graft in the mechanism as a more productive
solution for plate motion.

What people hope to achieve by ignoring geodynamics I do not know,it
has been on the table in its present form for a good few years now
with no pressure to adopt it,basically it exists as a halting
mechanism to stop 'convection cells' diluting the main argument for
plate motion and its long and short term effects.

I cannot imagine what dynamicists are going to apply to the Earth's
interior to generate the  40 km spherical deviation insofar as the
generalised rotational dynamics will almost certainly involve
differential rotation of the rotating composition in a fluid/flexible
state.There is no great upheavel with current plate tectonic outlines
other than the more productive geodynamics will answer more questions
than it will raise and besides,the 'convection cell' notions in
setting the internal composition and viscosity is not so important or
so far down the road that it cannot  be set aside for a more realistic
approach.

Maybe the problems are no longer technical but the bigger headache of
the 'scientific method' ideologies and that I cannot get involved in
insofar as it is what is generating junk concepts which are now in
competition with plate tectonics or keeping a geostationary mechanism.

Let me see if I can summarize your rambling statement.

You don't think that geophysicists can figure out why the Earth is
oblate rather than spherical. While you think that differential rotation
(which happens in stars) occurs in the Earth, you're adamant that
convection (which happens in stars) does not happen in the Earth. And
you have no data to support any of your claims.

Do I have it right?

--
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 -


This has gone on for far too long,differential rotation as a
generalised dynamic has been on the table for years while nobody
else has proposed exactly what causes the Earth sphericity to deviate
40km.

Yes, they have! The Earth rotates. The resulting centripetal
acceleration deforms the sphere into slight oblateness.

The onus is on those to come up with the actual rotational dynamics
for sphericity if they cannot accept differential rotation as a
generalised dynamic,I can't imagine how an alternative explanation
using actual observations is possible given the detailed analysis
already being done on rotating stars and the degree of sphericity with
respect to variations in Equiatorial speeds.

You're very good at writing run-on sentences.

Until somebody actually comes out with a explanation for the Earth
sphericity other than the details I added in terms of rotational
dynamics then I have nothing to gain from any response,even silence
looks stupid when geodynamics remains cut off from geological
evolution.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=earth+oblate+sphere&i
e=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 reveals about a hundred thousand articles.

Good luck to you and your stationary Earth or expanding Earth
perspectives,I enjoy my rotating Earth perspective regardless and I
mean that.

Oh??? Somehow I got the impression that the endless emotional rambles
you write on the subject indicated that this was merely a passing fancy.

--
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.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where did the extra mass come from?
    ... the continents by blowing up the Earth while the stationary Earthers ... in agreement (more or less though Plate Tectonics does a pretty bad ... If anything,the journey down the road of 'convection cells' have ... The difference between the rotation bands supply the internal ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: A better working principle
    ... Earth first and then graft in the mechanism as a more productive ... competition with plate tectonics or keeping a geostationary mechanism. ... While you think that differential rotation ... At this stage I think both you with your convection cells notions and ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: A better working principle
    ... Earth first and then graft in the mechanism as a more productive ... competition with plate tectonics or keeping a geostationary mechanism. ... While you think that differential rotation ... At this stage I think both you with your convection cells notions and ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Owens Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion
    ... this has been ignored in the liturgy of plate tectonics, ... Gerard there reckons the Earth convects "vigorously". ... NOw they're forced to begin with the first order ... Rotation rules, and it's obvious. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: A better working principle
    ... Earth first and then graft in the mechanism as a more productive ... differential rotation of the rotating composition in a fluid/flexible ... competition with plate tectonics or keeping a geostationary mechanism. ... else has proposed exactly what causes the Earth sphericity to deviate ...
    (sci.geo.geology)