Re: No offence to the geostationary guys
- From: don findlay <don@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
oriel36 wrote:
If anybody here ahas a problem with the generalised rotational
dynamics and specifically differential rotation of a rotating
celestial body in a viscous state they can take it up with stellar
dynamicists who already work with correlations between maximum
equatorial speed,differential rotation and variations in sphericity
between polar and Equatorial diameters.
A person invoking the so-called coriolis force into the discussion on
differential rotation,the coriolis force related to motion of low/
high pressure systems in hemispherical terms or Foucault's pendulum
certainly does not have a grasp of stellar dynamics let alone
geodynamics.
The Earth is not exempt from the effects of rotational dynamics and
specifically its internal composition and viscosity,if anyone wishes
to argue for an alternative mechanism to differential rotation then
so well and good however the correlation between geodynamics and
differential rotation to planetary sphericity contains an additional
observation ,namely,it is a more productive mechanism for crustal
motion.
If the geostationary 'convection cell' guys wish to continue to push
for the composition/viscosity criteria suited to of their notions
then good for them ,I work on geodynamical influences on geological
processes and do not care if 'convection cell' guys ever seen the
chain of reasoning involved in geodynamics and geological influences.
Really! ..You do so abrogate your responsibilities, Oriel. All this
carefree complaining is all very well, but these dudes need drawn back
in the fold of rationality. That Weetabix there can carry on about
convection and slab pull and frictional drag and the like simply shows
the asymmetrically skewed lump of a midden he has has for a brain
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/ridgesplit.html
....that prohibits any sentience whatsoever. He's a walking lump of
what he eats - except for that bit up top.
___________________<quote>
"The basic movements of lithospheric plates and tectonic features
resulting from the movement have been described in detail, but no
explanation has been given for epirogenic events in the platforms,
block faulting, and other non-marginal features. Geologists have
described regularities and cyclic events in the history of the earth,
and the concept of plate tectonics may be a random, incidental
occurrence of tectonic activity. There is an inherent limitation of
application of plate tectonics that is neglected by its adherents.
Processes within the earth may generate various modes of tectonic
behavior -- one of which is the plate response. An unfortunate
tendency has been selectivity in choice of data used, attributing all
features to drift patterns, to base broad interpretations on limited
data, and **|| worst of all, to be woefully ignorant of basic
geological knowledge in many of the model areas**||"
http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/plate.htm
________________________________________________________
Pteros. Woefully ignorant. And proud to be so.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: No offence to the geostationary guys
- From: sir . jpturcaud
- Re: No offence to the geostationary guys
- References:
- No offence to the geostationary guys
- From: oriel36
- No offence to the geostationary guys
- Prev by Date: Re: Tectonic plates and seams
- Next by Date: Re: Olivine pallasite question ~ a la ringwoodite
- Previous by thread: No offence to the geostationary guys
- Next by thread: Re: No offence to the geostationary guys
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
