Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386714
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Time and Gravity |
| Date | 2016-06-27 04:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dtbh57F86s6U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <njc63j$7h3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dsk20pFh77iU1@mid.individual.net> <nk9f9a$1vt4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dt8p65FlokvU1@mid.individual.net> <nkpfmh$1ov8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Am 26.06.2016 22:59, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> The rising of mountains is actually difficult to explain with plate >> tectonics. > > ??? No, not really. It's a natural outcome. > >> >> Plate tectonics assumes, that lifting is caused by plates, which dive >> under the other plates in a process called subduction. >> >> >> This is contrary to facts, since such a process would not leave the >> surface levelled. Instead we would expect deformation of the plate above >> the subducting plate (what we do not find). > > Why would you expect that? Plates are not smooth and of even thickness, but have form - at least on the upper side. This form is called 'landscape' and could include valleys and mountains. So subduction of such a plate would lift uneven. There would be more lift, if the plate is thicker and less, if the plate is thinner. Since such differences would inevitably occur, the plate on top could not stay horizontal. >> >> E.g. the Atacama desert is very horizontal, even if the plane is about >> 1100m above sea-level. > > Yes, so? What does this have to do with mountains? > Building of theories goes like this: you think about a phenomenon and estimate, why this happened. The explanation you have in mind is then put under scrutiny and questioned, whether or not that mechanism would work. Here we have the problem, whether or not mountains and their creation could be explained by what plate tectonic assumes. I said: no, it won't work that way, since if you push a large piece of rock beneath another one to lift that up, the upper level will not stay horizontal. But formerly horizontal planes stay horizontal for long times (Atacama desert) and to a astonishing degree (Portus Romae). Since the Atacama desert is high in the mountains, plates tectonics needed a lot of stuff pushed underneath that desert, hence a lot of chance to get out of horizontal orientation. >> >>>> >>>> This 'rising landmass' is a completely silly idea, since land is >>>> actually the crust of planet Earth. And the crust does not lift and >>>> float away. >>> >>> It is not necessary for a land mass to lift and float away. Nor is it >>> sensible to discount actual measurements. >> >> >> You need a possible process, by which you want to explain a certain >> observation. >> >> Lifting is one possibility, but I would exclude that, because we have >> gravity and large pieces of rock cannot float away. They are in contrast >> pulled by that force towards the centre of Earth. > > Lifting something heavy is not the same thing as the one on top floating > away. Don't be ridiculous. Well, there is actually a possibility, that such effects like 'lifting' are caused by negative gravity. It's certainly ridiculous to assume something like this, but I wanted to exclude that anyhow. >> >> So we could safely exclude zero-gravity effects and therefore need >> something else. >> >> Actually needed is a vertical force, by which such a lift could be >> explained. >> >> Subduction is now, what plate tectonic suggests. >> >> So the vertical force is created by horizontal movement of a plate, that >> pushes inside a certain part of the mantle beneath the mountains. >> >> >> This is actually a possible mechanism, thou not particularly convincing. > > It's pretty straight forward. Yes, it is somehow plausible, thou unlikely true. The reason, why this assumption is (or is not) actually true, that was the subject of our discussion. I wrote, that plates cannot dive into a solid layer of higher density and of higher pressure. There is also no obvious force, that would try to push the plates underneath another one. And the landscape we find in real does not fit to the expected deformations, which such a process would create. >> >> E.g. what force pushes that plate sideways? And aren't plates supposed >> to melt away inside the subduction zone? > > No! Why would you think that? Seems you're grasping at straws. The proponents of a certain theory are free to assume, what they find fitting. The opponents of such ideas have to take, what proponents provide. Since I try to attack the ideas provided by plate tectonics, I have to take that theory as it is. And, sure, plate tectonics assumes, that after subduction the plates melt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_melting .. >>>> But the mechanism does not work. >>>> >>>> One reason: the Earth' mantle is not liquid. >>> >>> It does not have to be a liquid. It only has to be fluid. The mantle is >>> not a rigid solid. Cherry-flavored gelatin is not a liquid. But you will >>> notice that if you shake the bowl, it is not a rigid solid, either. >>> Surely you acknowledge simple things like this. >> >> >> The upper mantle is quite solid and not similar to gel. > > I beg your pardon? What makes you say that? Actually I quote Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_mantle Quote: " ... and the lowermost part of the lithosphere composed of rigid rock about 50 to 120 km (31 to 75 mi) thick. ..." >> It is also very >> dense and under high pressure. > > Compared to what? > Yes, 'high pressure' is a 'relative' statement. So lets compare the pressure in a depth of e.g. 50 km to that on the surface. And certainly the weight of 50km of rock would add something to the pressure. >> >> So I don't see any possibly way, how crust could enter into the mantle. >> >>>> >>>> So the 'diving' plate has actually a hard time in trying to do so, >>>> since >>>> not only is the mantle not liquid, it is also of higher density and of >>>> higher pressure than the material, what tries to enter. >>> >>> So? A wooden arrow can easily penetrate a bale of cotton. It is easy to >>> prove that the bale is denser than the arrow by floating the arrow on >>> water and watching the packed cotton sink to the bottom. Nor is the bale >>> of cotton a liquid. >>> >>> So when you say a less dense substance cannot penetrate a more dense >>> substance, what is the basis for you claim when common experience tells >>> you this "law" just is not so? >> >> Well, you are right, that all kinds of things could enter into a >> material of higher density. But only, if they are rigid and/or have high >> velocity. > > The crust is more rigid than the mantle, and that's all that's needed. No. If you have something floating on some other substance, the upper material will tend to stay there, if it is of lower density. So you need higher density and/or a pushing force, what would cause something to dive into a material it is floating on. >> >> Now on Earth we have extremely low velocities in the range of mm per >> year. And the crust actually sits on top of the mantle like icing on a >> cake. >> >> So subduction requires a process, which is not observed under other >> circumstance, since lighter material is usually floating on denser >> material. > > Which it does, most of the time, unless it is dragged. You won't try to tell me, that the Earth is dragging in the outer crust? >>> See above about gelatin. You might also want to tip the bowl of gelatin >>> on its side and see if the gelatin flows out of the bowl. >> >> The materials are not like gelatine. The crust is mostly crystalline >> rock. > > The MANTLE is like gelatin. no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_%28geology%29 Quote: "The uppermost mantle plus overlying crust are relatively rigid and form the lithosphere, an irregular layer with a maximum thickness of perhaps 200 km (120 mi). Below the lithosphere the upper mantle becomes notably more plastic" >>>> >>>> Another serious problem, plate tectonics failed to explain is the >>>> impossibility of a piece of the crust to move at all. >>>> >>>> To illustrate the problem I suggest the following experiment: >>>> >>>> take a water-melon and paint all the plate boundaries of Earth >>>> plates on >>>> it (roughly). Then take a knife and make (shallow) cuts along these >>>> lines through the melon's crust. >>>> >>>> Now move the 'plates'. >>>> >>>> You'll find: they can't be moved. >>> >>> You have not allowed the melon's plates to slip under each other, have >>> you? Why not? >> >> >> Yeah. You may slip the melon's crust under the other pieces of the >> crust, if you like (and are able to do so). > > Yes, much easier with an avocado. Sure, it is easier with avocados. But the Earth is not an avocado and it could not be modelled by such a fruit. Reason: to soft and not ball-like. .. >>> For a better experiment, I suggest you do the same with an avocado. Be >>> sure to cut all the way through the skin of the avocado when you make >>> you model plates. Now try slipping those plates around. Not so hard is >>> it? >>> >> Avocadoes are too soft and not ball-like enough. > > Compared with the earth? I don't think so. The earth is not as hard as > you think. I can have a look at a mountain of choice and will find: that stuff is hard (at least in comparison to what I personally could deform). >> >> But maybe an apple would do. >> >>>> In real and on Earth' scale we have gravity, which tries to pull these >>>> plates to the centre. Since the Earth is spherical, the borders of >>>> these >>>> plates have conical angle, which are pressed against the other >>>> plates by >>>> gravity. >>> >>> No, there is no reason to assume that the boundary between plates stays >>> on along a radial line. >> >> >> Well, the plate borders should be vertical. > > ???? WHY DO YOU THINK SO? The term 'plate' suggests a mainly flat item. This is usually depicted with kind of map. These plates have borders, which are essentially lines on those maps. If not proven otherwise, these lines have to be extended over the entire thickness of the plates, hence are vertical. In reality they could have actually other forms, like e.g. wedges. But without a hint the assumed form is a vertical cut. >> Other forms are certainly >> possible, but would require some sort of explanation. >> 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