Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #384929 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-03 11:09 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-24 10:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 11:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <njc63j$7h3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #385460 |
On 6/8/2016 10:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 08.06.2016 22:52, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >>> >>> Well, no. >>> Growing Earth is not a mathematical concept. Neither is plate tectonics. >> >> Plate tectonics makes quantitative predictions. Maybe you're not aware >> of them? In any event, a growing earth theory would need to do the same >> to even be declared a viable candidate for a theory. >> >>> >>> The difference between both theories is actually simple: growth vs. >>> steady state. >>> >>> In other words: the Earth does either grow or not. >> >> So, what are the DISTINCTIVE observational predictions you would call >> out that would clearly mark that the earth is growing? > > > That is: Globally falling sea-levels at a rate of about 4m per millennium. > > This rate is changing and is actually accelerating. But currently we > seem to have this rate. > > It is simply derived from the Lake Trajan near Rome. Sorry, but I'm not seeing that in the data: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png Notice that this is not limited to a single lake. This is an average over all seas. You'll notice that the sea levels are not falling at the rate of 4m per millenium, they are in fact slowly rising. > > This is now 8m higher than the Mediterranean Sea and roughly 2000 years > old. Since we have no reason to assume, that the Romans didn't know, > where the mean level of the Mediterranean Sea was, we can safely assume > it was exactly where the surface of that lake is now. > > The rate of 4m/1000 years gives a precise 'clock' for > geological/historical events. > > E.g. the ancient city of Troy was once a harbour, which controlled the > entrance to the Dardanelles. Now the former port sits on a hill, 30m > above the Mediterranean Sea. You may notice that certain isolated land masses are historically rising (such as in the Himalayas), even though overall, the seas are rising. Now what do you suppose this local rising is due to? > > This gives an age of certain structures of about 7500 years. > > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-10 07:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <drv16dFa2r6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #385497 |
Am 09.06.2016 18:39, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>>> >>>> Well, no. >>>> Growing Earth is not a mathematical concept. Neither is plate >>>> tectonics. >>> >>> Plate tectonics makes quantitative predictions. Maybe you're not aware >>> of them? In any event, a growing earth theory would need to do the same >>> to even be declared a viable candidate for a theory. >>> >>>> >>>> The difference between both theories is actually simple: growth vs. >>>> steady state. >>>> >>>> In other words: the Earth does either grow or not. >>> >>> So, what are the DISTINCTIVE observational predictions you would call >>> out that would clearly mark that the earth is growing? >> >> >> That is: Globally falling sea-levels at a rate of about 4m per >> millennium. >> >> This rate is changing and is actually accelerating. But currently we >> seem to have this rate. >> >> It is simply derived from the Lake Trajan near Rome. > > Sorry, but I'm not seeing that in the data: > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png > > Notice that this is not limited to a single lake. This is an average > over all seas. You'll notice that the sea levels are not falling at the > rate of 4m per millenium, they are in fact slowly rising. One thing I forgot: Growing Earth is also an alternative explanation to geological features, which are commonly ascribed to an Ice Age. So: no ice age with GE! The sand explained by the glaciers is assumed to have been caused by former ocean-floors, where now is land, covered with sand. This is an alternative explanation and would make ice ages obsolete. There might have been one or more ice age, nevertheless, but the sand and pebbles are assumed to have been created and transported by liquid water, not by ice. >> >> This is now 8m higher than the Mediterranean Sea and roughly 2000 years >> old. Since we have no reason to assume, that the Romans didn't know, >> where the mean level of the Mediterranean Sea was, we can safely assume >> it was exactly where the surface of that lake is now. >> >> The rate of 4m/1000 years gives a precise 'clock' for >> geological/historical events. >> >> E.g. the ancient city of Troy was once a harbour, which controlled the >> entrance to the Dardanelles. Now the former port sits on a hill, 30m >> above the Mediterranean Sea. > > You may notice that certain isolated land masses are historically rising > (such as in the Himalayas), even though overall, the seas are rising. > Now what do you suppose this local rising is due to? Land does not rise! Especially not rising are high mountains like the Himalayas. G.E. has a different explanation for mountains: that they have been created under water, as 'sea-mounts'. The creation of islands as consequence of volcanic activity is different in water than on land. Volcanoes on land create conic shapes, while volcanoes in water create much steeper angles, since the water cools much faster than air. If the water-levels fall, the former islands sit on the land as a mountain (covered with oceanic fossils). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-10 13:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2tGdnWTAU7A-nsbKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #385569 |
On 6/10/16 6/10/16 12:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > One thing I forgot: Growing Earth is also an alternative explanation to > geological features, which are commonly ascribed to an Ice Age. > > So: no ice age with GE! So GE is dead in the water. Multiple ice ages are clear and obvious in MANY different geological records. > The sand explained by the glaciers is assumed to have been caused by former > ocean-floors, where now is land, covered with sand. Dead in the water. Glacial till is VERY different from sand generated at seashores. Not to mention glacial moraines, etc. > Land does not rise! Especially not rising are high mountains like the Himalayas. Except, of course, that GPS measurements show the Indian subcontinent moving north at precisely the right rate to account for the uplifting of the Himalayas. And there are literally zillions of GPS measurements showing continental drift. > [... more nonsense ignoring very basic geological obserations] Clearly you know as little about geology as you do about physics. That's not too surprising, as the observation is that stupid people are incompetent everywhere. "Stupid is as stupid does." [Forrest Gump] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-11 06:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ds1iodFpn3bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #385602 |
Am 10.06.2016 20:14, schrieb Tom Roberts: > On 6/10/16 6/10/16 12:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> One thing I forgot: Growing Earth is also an alternative explanation to >> geological features, which are commonly ascribed to an Ice Age. >> >> So: no ice age with GE! > > So GE is dead in the water. Multiple ice ages are clear and obvious in > MANY different geological records. > > >> The sand explained by the glaciers is assumed to have been caused by >> former >> ocean-floors, where now is land, covered with sand. > > Dead in the water. Glacial till is VERY different from sand generated at > seashores. Not to mention glacial moraines, etc. > The source of sand in the ocean is not only the shores. The coast is roughly a line. But you must think about the ocean in three dimensions. The water would erode any material within reach. There are also rivers, which bring sediments. Then the stuff sinks to the ground. Also rocks roll in currents get grind round. So we get sand and boulders, that cover the ground. Now imagine the water goes away and compare this with typical landscapes. Then comes grass and trees, that could grow on former organic sediments. And now compare this with actually landscapes. After you think about it for a while you will find, that many landscapes could be interpreted that way. But than the process goes on and the fruitful vegetation vanishes, after the are dried out. Then we get the sand back and see it without cover. This is mainly a natural process and what causes deserts. Internal seas, that have been cut off, turn into lakes and once the lakes dry out, the area turns into a salt pan in the mountains. Typical example: Utah or Atacama desert. Another type is Goby desert. The Sahara could be explained as former ocean, where we find former islands, that are now hills on a flat sandy area. Also important: air erosion does not create flat landscapes. All sorts of planes require liquid water, what levels out differences in hight by grinding off anything. Air erodes, too, but WAY less than water. So mountains could stand for eaons, while coastlines change relatively fast. The typical form created by water is rounded. We find pebbles and boulders, but also rounded islands. Such rounded forms of rock could hardly be explained without some sort of ocean. And now we find such formations in high regions, like in mountains. Similar formations are so common, that we hardly recognise them. But if you ask yourself, how e.g.horizontal line manage to occur in hill-sides, than former shorelines would be an explanation. Another hint for former water are sediment rocks, like sandstone or chalk. Sediments require a body of water above that location, where stuff sank to the ground in former times. Mountains could be interpreted as former sea-mounts, like e.g. the Canary Island of the Hawaii chain of islands. Typical is the slightly curved form of a chain of island, we find in similar fashion in the Alps or the Himalayas. Now let's compare this with what plate tectonics assumes as explanation for the same observation: Plate tectonics assumes, the mountains are folded up by the pressure of the approaching plate. That is in the case of the Alps the African plate. But that is flat wrong, since between Europe and Africa is the Mediterranean Sea, where we find volcanoes (like e.g. Stromboli). And such volcanoes are indication of spreading. At least the pressure applied by the African plate could not be too significant, since we also find Italy in direction of this pressure. And that country does not look like folded upwards. We also have the Adriatic Sea as kind of rift in North South direction. And that does not fit to an approach of the African plate. We find marine fossils on the Alps, like shells and fishbones. This would be another hint for former water. PT assumes, this fossils had been lifted up, by the pressure, which folded the sediment rocks, that Alps are made of. But crystalline rock is difficult to fold. Actually it cannot be folded at all. Even in geologic times a massive block of stone will not bent, even under tremendous pressure. If pressure exceeds the strength of the rock, it will break, since that is the behaviour of almost all crystals. And the Alps don't look like broken to pieces. Growing Earth assumes - in contrast - a feasible way of creation, that is similar to observed creation of mountains, but created under water. The water is the key to creation of mountains, since it cools lava much faster than air. So volcanoes in the oceans rise fast to the surface. Then the plates move a little bit and the next volcano rises above the same hotspot and builds another island. This gives a typical curved chain, we find in many mountains. >> Land does not rise! Especially not rising are high mountains like the >> Himalayas. > > Except, of course, that GPS measurements show the Indian subcontinent > moving north at precisely the right rate to account for the uplifting of > the Himalayas. And there are literally zillions of GPS measurements > showing continental drift. > How long does GPS exist? Maybe twenty years, possibly a little more. But geological timescale has a grid of millennia or million years. You simply don't measure changes of the Earth itself in a year, because that is equivalent to a milliseconds in human life. And you would not measure hair growth in milliseconds, but e.g. in mm per month. So we need a million year as typical grid in geology and not a year. And since the Earth is about 4,5 billion years old , we get 4500 data-points, if we 'measure' once a million years. And that would actually be enough. But shorter intervals would deliver a finer grain, so eventually a millennium is also acceptable. The year is way too short for typical changes of the Earth, hence cannot be seen at such a pace. >> [... more nonsense ignoring very basic geological obserations] If you call me ignorant, than how would you call yourself? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 11:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dsht3aF3uttU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #385602 |
Am 10.06.2016 20:14, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> [... more nonsense ignoring very basic geological obserations] > > Clearly you know as little about geology as you do about physics. > > That's not too surprising, as the observation is that stupid people are > incompetent everywhere. "Stupid is as stupid does." [Forrest Gump] > The character Forest Gump the film with the same name was not particularly stupid. Actually most of his decisions have been exceptionally smart. 'Stupid' have been - in a way - his irrational reasons, which -nevertheless- brought excellent results. E.g. he bought Apple (TM) shares, when that company was almost unknown. He had actually a kind of 'brain defect', what disabled certain mental functions, but not the ability to make brilliant decisions. I'm certainly slightly more educated than the person, that film tries to characterise. But eventually I do not fulfil all of your requirements. This is acceptable, at least for me, since I do not plan to ask you for a judgemnt about me as a person. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 06:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dsk20pFh77iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #385497 |
Am 09.06.2016 18:39, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> >> This is now 8m higher than the Mediterranean Sea and roughly 2000 years >> old. Since we have no reason to assume, that the Romans didn't know, >> where the mean level of the Mediterranean Sea was, we can safely assume >> it was exactly where the surface of that lake is now. >> >> The rate of 4m/1000 years gives a precise 'clock' for >> geological/historical events. >> >> E.g. the ancient city of Troy was once a harbour, which controlled the >> entrance to the Dardanelles. Now the former port sits on a hill, 30m >> above the Mediterranean Sea. > > You may notice that certain isolated land masses are historically rising > (such as in the Himalayas), even though overall, the seas are rising. > Now what do you suppose this local rising is due to? > Landmasses do not rise. 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. So, if landmasses rise, than because something the land is resting upon if pushing that piece of Earth' crust up. Plate tectonic assumes, that other plates perform this stunt, because they 'dive' under the lifted plates and therefore push it up. This is called 'subduction'. But the mechanism does not work. One reason: the Earth' mantle is not liquid. 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. And these plates have actually no good reason to try, since there ain't no force, that is pushing. Plate tectonics assumes, these forces are applied by 'convection currents'. But that can't be the case, because the mantle is not liquid. And without being molten, the material will not float around. 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. Reason: they 'stick' to the ground and there are other 'plates' in the way. 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. And since such plates are very large, the borders are many thousand kilometres long. Since plates could be about 40 kilometres thick, what gives an area of maybe 100,000+ km², upon which tremendous pressure rests. There is also the factor of form, which is hindering movement. And there are also plate in the way, since the Earth is - of course- totally covered with crust. In short: subduction does not work. But plate tectonic without subduction IS 'Growing Earth'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 12:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <SZKdnc4hAJivTfvKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #386118 |
On 6/17/16 6/17/16 11:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Landmasses do not rise. Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many landmasses do indeed rise, and are MEASURED to do so. The Himalayas are rising by 5-6 cm/year. > Another serious problem, plate tectonics failed to explain is the impossibility > of a piece of the crust to move at all. Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many plates and landmasses do indeed move, and are MEASURED to do so. See all the movement vectors here; most plates (and the associated continents) move a few cm/year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics The sea floor of the Atlantic ocean, between the South America and Africa plates, has been diverging for hundreds of millions of years, and the magnetic striping of the sea floor agrees with independent measurements of the reversals of earth's magnetic poles. > In short: subduction does not work. Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many plates do indeed subduct, and are MEASURED to do so. And others are MEASURED to diverge (the opposite of subduction); see previous paragraph. As I have said so often: ignorance of the EXPERIMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS is a fatal flaw in your arguments (and in the arguments by other fools and idiots around here). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9011b889-263b-49ef-8a60-66a3b0d011a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386226 |
G / (((1 / (29.9792458^2)) + 1) / (1.5 * (10^10))) = 0.999999351 ((1 / (29.9792458^2)) + 1) / (1.5 * (10^10)) = 6.6740843e-11 = G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-20 05:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dsp80jFi1shU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386226 |
Am 19.06.2016 19:02, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> Landmasses do not rise. > > Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many landmasses do > indeed rise, and are MEASURED to do so. > > The Himalayas are rising by 5-6 cm/year. 'Rising' is 'relative', since the reference surface is the mean sea-level. 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. > >> Another serious problem, plate tectonics failed to explain is the >> impossibility >> of a piece of the crust to move at all. > > Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many plates and > landmasses do indeed move, and are MEASURED to do so. > > See all the movement vectors here; most plates (and the > associated continents) move a few cm/year. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics > The sea floor of the Atlantic ocean, between the South America > and Africa plates, has been diverging for hundreds of millions > of years, and the magnetic striping of the sea floor agrees > with independent measurements of the reversals of earth's > magnetic poles. > Spreading is undisputed. The problem is 'floating' and 'subduction'. If you look at e.g. this animation, you would see, that plate tectonics also requires a process, by which plates kind of 'float around': http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tecall1_4.mov But this is a technically impossible process, since the plates sit on semi-solid underground and stick to that due to high pressure caused by the enormous weight. If you also ask yourself the question, why these plates should do this, then you would see, the mistakes lies in the assumption of a constant size of the planet, which is an essential part of plate tectonics. In contrast and as an example of a convincing animation I quote the videos of Neal Adams: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ >> In short: subduction does not work. > > Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many plates do > indeed subduct, and are MEASURED to do so. And others are MEASURED to > diverge (the opposite of subduction); see previous paragraph. > You cannot measure a geological process, which takes place over hundreds of millions of years. In case you would like to measure something in a very long lasting experiment, maybe ten years are possible. But ten years is simply nothing in Earth' history. It is similar to measure growth of a person in mm/sec. You could, nevertheless, measure extremely slow processes in an inappropriate scale, but would get a very small number. So, maybe you are actually right and it is in fact possible the form of the Earth with an astonishing accuracy of a few mm changing per year. Well, ok, I agree at this point, but hope you don't want me to do that (measure the Earth) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-20 15:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nk9kk0$97i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386264 |
On 6/19/2016 10:59 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 19.06.2016 19:02, schrieb Tom Roberts: > >>> Landmasses do not rise. >> >> Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many landmasses do >> indeed rise, and are MEASURED to do so. >> >> The Himalayas are rising by 5-6 cm/year. > > 'Rising' is 'relative', since the reference surface is the mean sea-level. No, it really doesn't. In modern measurements, it's the distance from the center of the earth, as measured by orbiting GPS satellites. As you know, GPS can tell you the elevation of the responder. > > 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. > >> >>> Another serious problem, plate tectonics failed to explain is the >>> impossibility >>> of a piece of the crust to move at all. >> >> Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many plates and >> landmasses do indeed move, and are MEASURED to do so. >> >> See all the movement vectors here; most plates (and the >> associated continents) move a few cm/year. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics >> The sea floor of the Atlantic ocean, between the South America >> and Africa plates, has been diverging for hundreds of millions >> of years, and the magnetic striping of the sea floor agrees >> with independent measurements of the reversals of earth's >> magnetic poles. >> > > > Spreading is undisputed. The problem is 'floating' and 'subduction'. > > If you look at e.g. this animation, you would see, that plate tectonics > also requires a process, by which plates kind of 'float around': > > http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tecall1_4.mov > > But this is a technically impossible process, since the plates sit on > semi-solid underground and stick to that due to high pressure caused by > the enormous weight. > > If you also ask yourself the question, why these plates should do this, > then you would see, the mistakes lies in the assumption of a constant > size of the planet, which is an essential part of plate tectonics. > > In contrast and as an example of a convincing animation I quote the > videos of Neal Adams: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ > > >>> In short: subduction does not work. >> >> Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many plates do >> indeed subduct, and are MEASURED to do so. And others are MEASURED to >> diverge (the opposite of subduction); see previous paragraph. >> > > You cannot measure a geological process, which takes place over hundreds > of millions of years. > > In case you would like to measure something in a very long lasting > experiment, maybe ten years are possible. But ten years is simply > nothing in Earth' history. > > It is similar to measure growth of a person in mm/sec. > > You could, nevertheless, measure extremely slow processes in an > inappropriate scale, but would get a very small number. So, maybe you > are actually right and it is in fact possible the form of the Earth with > an astonishing accuracy of a few mm changing per year. > > Well, ok, I agree at this point, but hope you don't want me to do that > (measure the Earth) > > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 22:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dt2vopFh63rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386326 |
Am 20.06.2016 22:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>>> Landmasses do not rise. >>> >>> Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many landmasses do >>> indeed rise, and are MEASURED to do so. >>> >>> The Himalayas are rising by 5-6 cm/year. >> >> 'Rising' is 'relative', since the reference surface is the mean >> sea-level. > > No, it really doesn't. In modern measurements, it's the distance from > the center of the earth, as measured by orbiting GPS satellites. As you > know, GPS can tell you the elevation of the responder. You cannot measure anything from the centre of the Earth, since the centre is deep inside the planet and cannot be seen. But you can eventually measure the circumference along the equator and calculate the diameter from this. But I don't think, this is possible with the required precision of a few millimetres (since growth is so slow) As far as I can tell, all the measurements from space are based on the difference to points on the surface. Decreasing hight over such a reference point would most likely be interpreted as deceleration of the satellite and not as growth of the Earth. >> >> 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. The difference is subduction. Growing Earth assumes, the spreading is caused by Growing Earth. Plate tectonics assumes, that the plates are pushed sideways, because of 'convection currents'. This cannot be true, since the Earth mantle is not liquid, but semi-solid. So these currents cannot be too significant. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 16:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkhivm$af$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386573 |
On 6/23/2016 3:39 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 20.06.2016 22:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >>>>> Landmasses do not rise. >>>> >>>> Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many >>>> landmasses do >>>> indeed rise, and are MEASURED to do so. >>>> >>>> The Himalayas are rising by 5-6 cm/year. >>> >>> 'Rising' is 'relative', since the reference surface is the mean >>> sea-level. >> >> No, it really doesn't. In modern measurements, it's the distance from >> the center of the earth, as measured by orbiting GPS satellites. As you >> know, GPS can tell you the elevation of the responder. > > 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. Also, if I am a satellite system and I can measure the vertical distance r from this sphere to a receiver, then I therefore know the distance between the receiver and the center of the earth. It is R-r. GPS satellites measure the distance r, and they measure R. Therefore they can tell you the distance of any receiver R-r from the center of the earth, without any reference to ground level or sea level or anything else. > > But you can eventually measure the circumference along the equator and > calculate the diameter from this. > > But I don't think, this is possible with the required precision of a few > millimetres (since growth is so slow) > > As far as I can tell, all the measurements from space are based on the > difference to points on the surface. That is simply not true. > > Decreasing hight over such a reference point would most likely be > interpreted as deceleration of the satellite and not as growth of the > Earth. > >>> >>> 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. 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. > > The difference is subduction. > > Growing Earth assumes, the spreading is caused by Growing Earth. > > Plate tectonics assumes, that the plates are pushed sideways, because of > 'convection currents'. > > This cannot be true, since the Earth mantle is not liquid, but > semi-solid. So these currents cannot be too significant. What do you mean "too significant"? Is the flow of Jello out of a bowl when you tip that semi-solid "too significant"? > > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 07:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dt3tksFmdbvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386574 |
Am 23.06.2016 23:06, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 6/23/2016 3:39 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 20.06.2016 22:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> >>>>>> Landmasses do not rise. >>>>> >>>>> Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many >>>>> landmasses do >>>>> indeed rise, and are MEASURED to do so. >>>>> >>>>> The Himalayas are rising by 5-6 cm/year. >>>> >>>> 'Rising' is 'relative', since the reference surface is the mean >>>> sea-level. >>> >>> No, it really doesn't. In modern measurements, it's the distance from >>> the center of the earth, as measured by orbiting GPS satellites. As you >>> know, GPS can tell you the elevation of the responder. >> >> 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!) 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. ... >>>> >>>> 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. 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. On a constant sized Earth plates cannot move at all, because they would instantly hit the neighbouring plates along on almost half of their circumference (not only at the assumed subduction zones). And much less they could slide along these neighbours, since the form would hinder the movement. They are also not rounded on the side opposite side of the Euler pole of that movement. The gluey connection to the mantle would also be a significant stumbling block for floating of plates And, last, but not least, subduction does not work. > 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. They also have no rigid crust. So I don't see them as good example. >> The difference is subduction. >> >> Growing Earth assumes, the spreading is caused by Growing Earth. >> >> Plate tectonics assumes, that the plates are pushed sideways, because of >> 'convection currents'. >> >> This cannot be true, since the Earth mantle is not liquid, but >> semi-solid. So these currents cannot be too significant. > > What do you mean "too significant"? Is the flow of Jello out of a bowl > when you tip that semi-solid "too significant"? > The Earth mantle is more than 80% of the Earth' material. It is more or less 'one piece', since very high pressure pushes it together. On the upper layers the mantle is solid. So how would you like to construct 'convection currents' within the mantle? Btw: what puzzles me is the ignorance of this particular question among physicists. Reason: if Earth does in fact grow, physicist can be certain to have made some mayor mistakes. So the question, whether or not Earth would grow, is of tremendous importance in theoretical physics. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 07:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkja87$ii7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386577 |
On 6/24/2016 12:09 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 23.06.2016 23:06, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> On 6/23/2016 3:39 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 20.06.2016 22:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>> >>>>>>> Landmasses do not rise. >>>>>> >>>>>> Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many >>>>>> landmasses do >>>>>> indeed rise, and are MEASURED to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Himalayas are rising by 5-6 cm/year. >>>>> >>>>> 'Rising' is 'relative', since the reference surface is the mean >>>>> sea-level. >>>> >>>> No, it really doesn't. In modern measurements, it's the distance from >>>> the center of the earth, as measured by orbiting GPS satellites. As you >>>> know, GPS can tell you the elevation of the responder. >>> >>> 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. > > 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 does. > 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. > > On a constant sized Earth plates cannot move at all, because they would > instantly hit the neighbouring plates along on almost half of their > circumference (not only at the assumed subduction zones). > > And much less they could slide along these neighbours, since the form > would hinder the movement. They are also not rounded on the side > opposite side of the Euler pole of that movement. > > The gluey connection to the mantle would also be a significant > stumbling block for floating of plates Again with this "significant" term. I ask you again whether Jello "significantly" distorts when you tip the bowl, as it is a semi-solid and not a liquid. Yes or no? > > And, last, but not least, subduction does not work. > >> 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. > 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! > So I don't > see them as good example. > >>> The difference is subduction. >>> >>> Growing Earth assumes, the spreading is caused by Growing Earth. >>> >>> Plate tectonics assumes, that the plates are pushed sideways, because of >>> 'convection currents'. >>> >>> This cannot be true, since the Earth mantle is not liquid, but >>> semi-solid. So these currents cannot be too significant. >> >> What do you mean "too significant"? Is the flow of Jello out of a bowl >> when you tip that semi-solid "too significant"? >> > > The Earth mantle is more than 80% of the Earth' material. It is more or > less 'one piece', since very high pressure pushes it together. On the > upper layers the mantle is solid. It's like Jello -- a semi-solid. > > So how would you like to construct 'convection currents' within the mantle? Differential heat flow! Just like the sun! > > Btw: what puzzles me is the ignorance of this particular question among > physicists. > > Reason: if Earth does in fact grow, physicist can be certain to have > made some mayor mistakes. So the question, whether or not Earth would > grow, is of tremendous importance in theoretical physics. > > TH > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 09:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <IaudnZKAyezU1PDKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #386580 |
On 6/24/16 6/24/16 7:49 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/24/2016 12:09 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> [...] > 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. Yes. Position in the GPS is computed in the ECI, which are EARTH-CENTERED inertial coordinates, with origin at the center of the earth. Then that position is transformed to (longitude, latitude, altitude) relative to the earth surface. It is done that way because only in the ECI is the speed of light isotropically c (modulo corrections). Heger is one of the many people around here who thinks his personal GUESSES are better than a few minutes' research into what is actually done. His profound and comprehensive ignorance colors everything he writes. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 17:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dt5226FtkphU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386580 |
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 .. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 13:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkjteu$1l25$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386583 |
On 6/24/2016 10:31 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > 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? The sphere of the orbit of the satellites does not change, even if the earth is growing. Why would it? That is strictly governed by the strength of the gravitational field out at that orbit, which is NOT CHANGING. > > How would they do that? > > You said, the GPS system measures the diameter of the Earth, No, I didn't say that. I said the GPS system measures the diameter of the sphere of their orbit. The earth is well inside this orbital sphere. I'll reiterate this: The GPS satellites range relative to each other. Where the ground is underneath them is irrelevant for this determination. > 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. But they CAN and they DO. If you will check the actual documentation about how the system actually works, you will see this. > > 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. No. They measure the distance to EACH OTHER, which determines the diameter of the orbital sphere. That orbital sphere is determined completely independently of where the ground is underneath. They don't even have to LOOK at the ground to determine this. Once the ORBITAL sphere (not the sphere of the earth, the ORBITAL sphere) is determined, then the center is known -- just like you would know where the center of your circular walk around a mountain would be, even though you can't see into the mountain. > > >>> >>> 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. That is NOT what plate tectonics presumes. If you have seen a comparison of tectonic plates with a conveyor belt, and you took that illustration to mean that tectonic plates are flat and rectangular, then you over-literalized that illustration. The illustration is intended for children. Plate tectonics does NOT assume a plane model of plates. > > 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. That is not accurate either and is as bad as the flat, rectangular conveyor belt analogy. > 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. You have mistaken a child's analogy of a conveyor belt for a literal description of tectonic plates. Good grief. > >>> 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. I believe now you are arguing for the sake of arguing. > > 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. I disagree. The continental crust is 40 km thick and the radius of the earth is 6400 km. The ratio between these is 160. The skin of an avocado is a half a mm, and the radius of the fruit is 50 mm, a ratio of 100. The skin of the earth is thinner, relative to the earth, than the skin of an avocado. > > And the size of the Earth is more or less irrelevant for the strength of > the crust. COMPLETELY disagree. This is a scaling problem. The rock is not nearly as cohesive as you think it is. What counts here is a shear strength. Rock's shear strength is LESS than an avocado skin. > > 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), And if you suspended that at one end, it would crumble. The rock is not as stiff as you think it is. > 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. The conveyor belt is a child's analogy. > > TH > > .. >> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 12:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <abc-FFA820.12572724062016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #386585 |
In article <nkjteu$1l25$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > > But what if they try to measure changes of this sphere? > > The sphere of the orbit of the satellites does not change, even if the > earth is growing. Why would it? That is strictly governed by the > strength of the gravitational field out at that orbit, which is NOT > CHANGING. Nonsense! If, as is the case, Earth is getting more massive from meteorite impacts, so is its gravitational field changing and changing any orbits around Earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d185e1b3-325b-4be1-aa0d-5e6fa971cca7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386588 |
W dniu piątek, 24 czerwca 2016 20:57:34 UTC+2 użytkownik A Nony Mouse napisał: > In article <nkjteu$1l25$1@gioia.aioe.org>, > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > But what if they try to measure changes of this sphere? > > > > The sphere of the orbit of the satellites does not change, even if the > > earth is growing. Why would it? That is strictly governed by the > > strength of the gravitational field out at that orbit, which is NOT > > CHANGING. > > Nonsense! If, as is the case, Earth is getting more massive from > meteorite impacts, so is its gravitational field changing and changing > any orbits around Earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-25 04:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dt68urF6d7tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386588 |
Am 24.06.2016 20:57, schrieb A Nony Mouse: >>> But what if they try to measure changes of this sphere? >> >> The sphere of the orbit of the satellites does not change, even if the >> earth is growing. Why would it? That is strictly governed by the >> strength of the gravitational field out at that orbit, which is NOT >> CHANGING. > > Nonsense! If, as is the case, Earth is getting more massive from > meteorite impacts, so is its gravitational field changing and changing > any orbits around Earth. 'Growing Earth' assumes a different mechanism. That is creation of matter inside the planet. This matter would kind of bubble upwards from the centre to the crust and breaks out in volcanoes. Now this mechanism is actually the thing, which possibility I try to prove by proving 'Growing Earth'. The idea behind it is the assumption I call 'structured spacetime'. (about what I have written the following 'book': https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) According to this concept matter is a 'structure' of/in spacetime and 'relative'. So matter could be created in a low energy process and inside a planet. This concept is in sharp contrast to the standard model of cosmology. To decide, who is right, I try to prove, whether or not Growing Earth is true (or not). And to the best of my knowledge Growing Earth is actually correct. So matter does not come from the early times of the universe and a hot big-bang, but is created in realtime inside celestial bodies. The could be tested in a laboratory. So I assume it would be possible to create dust inside of a sealed plastic container by certain waves (pulsed microwaves). (Unfortunately I don't have such a laboratory. ) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web