Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386868
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Time and Gravity |
| Date | 2016-06-29 08:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dth6ruFcq8qU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (18 earlier) <nkrunf$1ohc$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dtdogsFmeraU1@mid.individual.net> <nktut4$m3u$2@gioia.aioe.org> <dtg3tkF6jc7U1@mid.individual.net> <nkuprc$3nt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Am 28.06.2016 23:22, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>>>> I disagree. >>>>> >>>>> To start with, let's just examine whether there are any evidences of >>>>> currents at all and what might be responsible for them. >>>> >>>> If the upper mantle is actually a solid, there will be not much >>>> current. >>> >>> But it is not. From your own cited Wikipedia article about the mantle: >>> "The mantle makes up about 84% of Earth's volume.[14] It is >>> predominantly solid but in geological time it behaves as a very viscous >>> fluid." >>> >> We could reduce our research to the upper mantle, since that is the part >> of the mantle, which has contact to the upper tectonic plates. > > Sorry, but you're trying to cherry pick things so that they conform to > your expectations. I don't buy that. I can and I do because of the analogy to ice on water: the strength of the ice is independent of the depth of water underneath. So I don't see any obvious reason to take layers much deeper inside the planet into consideration than those, that are involved in the characteristics of the surface. So the upper mantle (roughly 200 km thick) should do and we could leave out all the lower layers. .. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_mantle >> >> 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)." >> >> I have translated 'relatively rigid' to 'solid'. (So: Possibly the >> material has a small ability to 'flow'.) > > Not so small. Read my quote from the SAME ARTICLE where it says that on > geological scale, it behaves like a viscous fluid. Why do you > cherry-pick the part of the article you like and ignore the part you > don't like?? Well, yes, but if we restrict our research on the upper layer of the mantle, than no. .. >>>> >>>> I predict, that a plate behaves more or less like a really big stone. >>> >>> This is counter to measurement. >> >> The mountains I have seen look quite like huge blocks of stone. Maybe 'a >> stone' is not exactly a good analogy, but I would say it is. > > "Look quite like" doesn't cut it. Look at geological scales. Do not use > your at-a-glance impressions. > > What does this picture tell you about your thoughts of mountains as huge > blocks of stone? > http://saturniancosmology.org/files/geology/Sect2_1a_files/showimage2.jpg > http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/recumbent-fold.jpg 'Stone' is a term, which is used to name relatively hard and heavy objects, we find everywhere on Earth. Stones can have internal structure and still behave as one piece. So a massive block of the upper tectonic plate could be regarded as 'stone', since: - it is mainly the same material - it is rigid - it is heavy and has several other features, also stones have (hardness, crystalline structures, brittle..). Since the Earth surface has changed in geological times, the former surface got covered with various kinds of remains from former times. This happened typical in layers (both in GE and PT). Growing Earth assumes, that the planet was never entirely molten, but had grown and in this process got covers with sediments and by volcanic activity. Since the surface is/was not flat, the form of the sediments or the covers with lava could look like being bent. But that is not necessarily the case. In the second of these pictures I would see the impression of former sea-floor (now sandy plane) and former soil on top of the hill. The interesting formation was actually created as coast of a former ocean. >> >>>> >>>> And this plate rests on the underground and is 'glued' there by the >>>> force of gravity. >>> >>> This is also counter to measurement. >> >> Yes, agreed. Gravity does not really glue. But plates are heavy and the >> upper part of the mantle is kind of rigid and very hot, the upper plates >> would most likely (kind of) stick to the mantle. > > Most likely? Based on your gut feel? Or based on data? > > Science is based on DATA. Not quite.. First: data from the crust/mantle connection is hard to achieve. Second: data needs interpretation, since a bunch of numbers would not help very much, if you don't know how to make use of them. So we need a certain amount of common sense and knowledge from other circumstances to interpret measurements and resulting data. Here we have: - hot stone (almost molten) - VERY high pressure - spherical form - at least the upper part is rigid This is what we know and upon you certainly agree. From other circumstance we know, such connections have a tendency to stick. We could e.g. transform the process to a more practical scale of pressure and temperature and use plastics instead of rock. And we certainly expect this to stick. >>>> >>>> I wrote, that stretching of these 'conveyor belts' sideways (to make it >>>> fill the hexagon) would cause deformations, which we do not find in >>>> nature. >>> >>> But plate tectonics does not assume hexagonal plates like a soccer ball >>> or flat rectangular conveyor belts. >> >> >> It's kind of tiling, by what the Earth is covered with plates. Only the >> tiles do not stick to a flat wall, but to a large ball, hence have a >> spherical form. >> >> I used a spherical hexagon as geometric approximation of a plate. And - >> sure - you are absolutely right, that plates ain't hexagons. > > Nor do they behave as hexagons. That's the point. You treat them as an > approximation and then complain when real geography doesn't behave like > hexagons would. This is obvious proof that the hexagonal approximation > is no good and should be dropped! I could use a circle instead, even if a ball cannot be tiled completely with circles. You can in fact use any form (other than rectangular), since all other forms are not constant in width. So in effect plate tectonic uses rectangular shapes of plates, since it has no convincing explanation for changes of width. .. >> And this curvature is it, what requires other form than rectangular for >> tiles, which completely cover the planet. So such a 'conveyor belt' has >> to wider in the middle, even if the tile is not a hexagon. > > You keep bringing up the conveyor belt analogy and claiming it has > problems, when a conveyor belt analogy is not part of the plate tectonic > model, except as a child's illustration. What you are doing is what's > called putting up a strawman. You are putting up a FALSE REPRESENTATION > of plate tectonics, and then finding fault with the false > representation. That accomplishes nothing. If you want to criticize > plate tectonics then you need to know what plate tectonics ACTUALLY > SAYS, not your strawman version of it. We could actually use the real form of the real plates, if you prefer that. It is the same problem, only a little more difficult to explain with complex shapes. 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