Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386583
Show key headers only | View raw
Am 24.06.2016 14:49, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>>> You cannot measure anything from the centre of the Earth, since the >>>> centre is deep inside the planet and cannot be seen. >>> >>> Sir, please start thinking. >>> If I am a satellite system that has orbits on a sphere in space, then I >>> know the location of the center of that sphere. (If you walked in a >>> large circle, measuring your distance of travel, you would know the >>> circumference of the circle you walked in. Knowing the circumference and >>> dividing by 2*pi, you now know the radius of the circle from your >>> measured distance of travel. Now that you know the radius, you know the >>> exact location of the center of the circle you traveled in, even though >>> it may be in the middle of a mountain.) The center of that sphere >>> coincides with the center of the earth, even though I cannot see the >>> center of the earth. The radius of this sphere is therefore a measured >>> value R. >> >> >> This too funny, since what you cannot do in orbit, that is measure the >> distance travelled by kind of odometer. (You DON'T walk in space!) > > I did not mean to suggest that satellites measure the circumference of > their travel. They know the dimensions of the sphere they are on by > different means (radar ranging, effectively). The point of my > illustration of walking in a circle is to point out that you do not need > to be able to see the center of a circle to know where it is, even when > walking around a mountain. The point is this statement: "They know the dimensions of the sphere..." But what if they try to measure changes of this sphere? How would they do that? You said, the GPS system measures the diameter of the Earth, but I don't see, how the satellites can do this. This is so, because the diameter goes into foundations of the GPS system. To measure this diameter, the satellites would need something else as reference. And I do not see any possibility, at least no easy one. And if they can't do it, than most likely they haven't done it. Radar or laser measurements are certainly possible, but would not provide the distance from centre to surface, since this distance cannot be measured directly. Both measure the distance from surface to satellite and that was not the distance in question. >> >> You can only measure movement in respect to certain reference points and >> those are on the surface of the Earth, because the orbit does not >> provide such points. > > Not so. The GPS satellites have each other to provide that reference, > and likewise knowledge of the sphere. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GPS_satellites > > You have this mistaken illusion that all location services are with > respect to ground level, and this is simply untrue. It's a false claim > you have to let go of. > >> >> ... >> >>>>>> >>>>>> If this sea-level changes, the mountain would also 'rise'. >>>>>> >>>>>> But rising mountains are actually no problem for 'Growing Earth', >>>>>> since >>>>>> 'growth' actually means' rise of the surface'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Plate tectonics, in contrast, needs some kind of mechanism, by which >>>>>> the >>>>>> mountains would rise. >>>>> >>>>> Collision of plates. You don't believe plates can move, but they've >>>>> been >>>>> MEASURED to move despite your doubts. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't have doubts about plate movement. Spreading is similar in Plate >>>> tectonics and Growing Earth. >>> >>> Well, that's funny, because with your watermelon example, you claimed >>> that the friction is too much for plates to move at all. >> >> >> No! >> I wrote, that movement of plates is caused by growth. >> >> What cannot possibly work is the mechanism, which Plate tectonic assumes. >> >> PT has a constant size of the planet as axiom. Under this condition >> plates cannot move at all. >> >> PT uses, in violation of facts, a plane model of plates. > > I don't think so, no. I don't know where you got the impression that it A belt is flat and rectangular. It has two main dimensions: length and width. It has also thickness, but we could ignore this in these circumstances. A belt has a feature, that tectonic plates cannot have: belts have constant width. A tectonic plate could be approximated with a large hexagon. The one side is the spreading zone, from where it originates and on the opposite side we have the subduction zone. But in between these zones, the 'belt' is changing width. And such a feature of tectonic plates is not seen in reality. And such a process would definitely not stay unnoticed, since if such a plate would stretch significantly and subsequently would be squeezed together, we would expect tremendous 'ripples' in the landscape, which are simply not there . Plate tectonic ignores this problem by using the flat model of a conveyor belt, while sweeping the problem of different width under the rug. The other problem ignored is the spherical form. This is significantly different to the form of a belt, which could be approximated by a sheet or plane. >> Those plates >> move like a conveyor belt about a surface. They rise at the spreading >> zone, move along the surface and dive into Earth at the subduction zone. >> >> But in reality the Earth has a spherical surface and plates are not flat >> and not roughly rectangular. >> ... >>> This is why I suggested you try the same experiment with an avocado, >>> cutting all the way through the skin. Now you will certainly see the >>> plates on that avocado move when you push them, spreading and subduction >>> alike. >>> >> >> Avocados are not spherical. > > Nor is a watermelon. Objection irrelevant. Well, no. A melon is quite close to a ball. A pumpkin would also be a possible example. But fruits with soft and thin skin are not possible. In a way similar is actually an egg. This has the feature of a hard rigid surface. >> They also have no rigid crust. > > They are just as rigid as the Earth's crust! I suggest you look up the > thickness of an avocado skin compared to the fruit radius, and compare > it to the earth's crust thickness compared to the earth's radius! The Earth crust is about 40 km thick and made of rock. This rock is very stiff and brittle and by no means similar to the skin of an avocado. And the size of the Earth is more or less irrelevant for the strength of the crust. Example: the ice on a hypothetical sea is frozen and say 40 cm thick. It's strength is independent from the depth of the water underneath. So you could reduce the problem to the strength of the ice and ignore the water. In comparison the crust has a certain strength and this is (as approximation) independent from the diameter of the Earth's crust. So you just have a large solid block of stone (40km thick, say 2000km long and 1000km wide), which is floating on semi-solid, dense, sticky and hot material under very high pressure. The spherical form makes matters worse, since this form reduces the possibility for deformation very much. I personally don't see, how a 'conveyor belt' should work under such conditions. TH .. >
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 11:09 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:38 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:35 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:20 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-04 06:34 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:36 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-05 05:03 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 15:35 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-07 15:52 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 11:26 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 10:42 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-08 01:55 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 22:24 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-08 23:24 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-10 01:24 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-12 10:19 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 08:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 22:39 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 15:52 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-09 05:13 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:39 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-10 07:23 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-10 13:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-11 06:35 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-17 11:09 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-18 06:46 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-19 12:02 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-19 14:17 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-20 05:59 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 15:45 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-23 22:39 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 16:06 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-24 07:09 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 07:49 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-24 09:52 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-24 17:31 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 13:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-06-24 12:57 -0600
Re: Time and Gravity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-24 12:08 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 04:35 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 20:12 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 20:31 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-24 23:48 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 08:13 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-25 09:04 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:33 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-26 03:34 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 15:33 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-27 23:58 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 08:26 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-11 06:30 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-13 09:50 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-13 07:40 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-14 07:14 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 05:54 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 07:03 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-25 14:00 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-06-25 18:31 +0000
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 05:02 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:32 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-12 06:30 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-12 08:27 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:07 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 07:23 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 14:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-26 03:24 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 15:59 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-27 04:25 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 14:27 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-28 00:43 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 08:43 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-28 22:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 16:22 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 08:06 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 05:47 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 19:18 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:28 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-08 09:36 +0200
Silliness about "growing earth" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-08 10:45 -0500
Re: Silliness about "growing earth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-09 07:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Alejandro Bellucci <alejb@yahoo.info> - 2016-07-08 17:49 +0000
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:08 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 18:46 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 12:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 19:45 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 13:02 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-30 07:41 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 05:12 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:46 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 22:16 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 15:54 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-02 07:25 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-06 04:18 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 23:28 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-06 23:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:23 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:36 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-09 13:18 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:25 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-10 07:05 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:41 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 08:54 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:17 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:37 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 11:11 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 10:13 -0700
csiph-web