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 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-25 13:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkmimr$1fn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386631 |
On 6/24/2016 10:02 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 24.06.2016 20:17, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>
> Since the mass of the Earth assumed to increase, the gravity of Earth
> would change, too.
And if this happened, then the radar ranging between satellites would
INCREASE measurably. But that has not happened.
>
> This would make the distance to the Sun larger and the year longer.
>
> Also the Earth Moon distance would increase.
>
> This is a feature of angular momentum, since if the planet gains mass,
> the rotational velocity would decrease.
Are you quite sure of that? See Equation 581 here:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node155.html
>
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> The GPS satelites measure the distance to each other?
Yes!
>
> Well, maybe, but as non-expert in this field I will not insist on my
> opinion about how the system functions.
>
> So possibly you are in fact right and the GPS satelites could measure,
> whether or not the Earth would grow.
Thank you! And this is precisely what is used to measure the height of
mountains.
>
> But do you actually think, the US-military would tell, if they would
> measure such a growth?
The GPS measurements needed to measure mountain elevations are not
mil-grade and are not dependent on the military to publish it.
>
>
> ...
>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
>
> Sure they do.
>
> A conveyor belt is actually (almost) two-dimensional and flat. And pt
> uses the conveyor belt as model for the movement of plates.
No, it really doesn't. It may in a child's illustration, but not in the
real scientific model.
What is your reference source material for plate tectonics theory?
>
> As Earth is roughly a ball, the crust is a spherical shell about this ball.
>
> If you regard plates a kind of tiles, you need a model, which completely
> covers the ball of the planet by such tiles.
>
> Relatively close is a soccer ball and its typical pattern of hexagonal
> shapes ('tiles').
>
> If these tiles would move from one side of the hexagon towards the
> other, they would need to stretch towards the middle and then compress
> again.
>
> And this a completely impossible process and something not observed.
>
> But a tile in constant form and size cannot move about the ball, since
> the ball is completely covered. So a moving tile would soon run into
> another tile and then stop.
>
>>>
>>> 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
>
> No. A soccer ball is quite a good example. But also a ball created from
> flat hexagons would be much more ball-like than the cube, you could
> actually construct from rectangular 'plates'.
Sorry, but no. That is not anywhere close to the shape of the tectonic
plates.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
>
> I used, what plate tectonic provides and that is this 'conveyor belt'
> analogy.
What reference for plate tectonics are you using????
>
> Actually I try to prove 'Growing Earth', hence think, that PT is wrong.
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
>
> Not true. What I actually try to prove is something different than
> Growing Earth. That is the concept I have developed I call 'structured
> spacetime', which is essentially something about matter and what that
> might be.
>
> In case you don't have that link already, here it comes again:
>
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
> Since I have spent a terrible lot of time on this 'book', I feel kind of
> disappointed about nobody reading it.
This is common among self-published cranks.
>
> So I try to find proof, that my concept is actually correct and growing
> Earth would provide evidence.
>
>
> TH
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 06:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <duja38F6f4pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386656 |
Am 25.06.2016 20:32, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 6/24/2016 10:02 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 24.06.2016 20:17, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> >>>>>>> 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. >> >> >> Since the mass of the Earth assumed to increase, the gravity of Earth >> would change, too. > > And if this happened, then the radar ranging between satellites would > INCREASE measurably. But that has not happened. No. If the mass would increase, then gravity, too. Since the mass of the satellites does not increase, the growing gravity would make the orbit decrease (not increase). >> >> This would make the distance to the Sun larger and the year longer. >> >> Also the Earth Moon distance would increase. >> >> This is a feature of angular momentum, since if the planet gains mass, >> the rotational velocity would decrease. > > Are you quite sure of that? See Equation 581 here: > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node155.html Well, yes: if angular momentum is conserved, than more mass means less rotation velocity. >> >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> The GPS satelites measure the distance to each other? > > Yes! Really? I don't see, that the GPS satellites have means to measure the distance to other GAPS-satellites. They have, of course, the GPS-system itself and could measure distances with that. But this not a real distance measurement, since it is a measurement based on the same features of the orbit, that is under consideration for the question of 'Growing Earth'. You would need lasers or similar to measure distances with optics. But the satellites do not have such devices. >> >> Well, maybe, but as non-expert in this field I will not insist on my >> opinion about how the system functions. >> >> So possibly you are in fact right and the GPS satelites could measure, >> whether or not the Earth would grow. > > Thank you! And this is precisely what is used to measure the height of > mountains. 'height of mountains' means 'height above the mean sea level'. If the sea-level drops, the hight of mountains would also increase. So we need a measurement of the mean sea-level in respect to the centre of the Earth. Unfortunately this is quite difficult to measure, since the reference point 'centre of the Earth' is not visible. >> >> But do you actually think, the US-military would tell, if they would >> measure such a growth? > > The GPS measurements needed to measure mountain elevations are not > mil-grade and are not dependent on the military to publish it. ?? I personally think, that US military uses its own physics. What we are talking about is only the comically distorted version for the stupid public. So the last thing they wanted to happen is new physics, based on facts instead of BS-artists. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 08:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <782e6345-8954-46f1-97d8-2499c2635405@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387629 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >>> 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. >> >> >> Since the mass of the Earth assumed to increase, the gravity of Earth >> would change, too. > > And if this happened, then the radar ranging between satellites would > INCREASE measurably. But that has not happened. No. If the mass would increase, then gravity, too. Since the mass of the satellites does not increase, the growing gravity would make the orbit decrease (not increase) If everything made of mass was Growing proportionally, the only other necessary variable to counteract the growing would be a drop in the Kinetic Energy of Space Time. (Mass per meter^3) / (change in kinetic energy of space time )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 09:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm5hu5$1n1g$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387629 |
On 7/11/2016 11:30 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> The GPS satelites measure the distance to each other? >> >> Yes! > > Really? I don't see, that the GPS satellites have means to measure the > distance to other GAPS-satellites. They have, of course, the GPS-system > itself and could measure distances with that. > > > But this not a real distance measurement, since it is a measurement > based on the same features of the orbit, that is under consideration for > the question of 'Growing Earth'. > > You would need lasers or similar to measure distances with optics. But > the satellites do not have such devices. > Irrelevant how YOU would think they would have to do it. What matter is how they ACTUALLY do it, which is documented. And which you apparently have not read, nor do you seem to be able to find on your own. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 07:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00637555-d0f0-4083-9cfa-6b545c360d06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386573 |
(1 / (((68 665.5865 (meters per second)) / (1 Mpc)) * (c^2))) / 5 = 1 If an expanding earth is factual at all, it is tied to the Hubble expansion (1 / (((68 665.5865 (meters per second)) / (1 Mpc)) * (c^2))) / 5 = 1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-20 14:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nk9f9a$1vt4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386118 |
On 6/17/2016 11:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > 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 is counter to actual surveying measurements. Everest, for example, is rising relative to distant land masses at a rate of 2.4 inches per year. This is a MEASURED number. > > 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. > > 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. 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. > > 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? > > 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. 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. > > 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? > > Reason: they 'stick' to the ground and there are other 'plates' in the way. > You haven't pushed hard enough to inelastically deform the interior of the melon. Moreover, you're using a model where the rind thickness is much thicker in ratio to melon diameter than is the case with the earth. 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? > > 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. > > 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 -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-26 03:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dt8p65FlokvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386314 |
Am 20.06.2016 21:14, 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 is counter to actual surveying measurements. Everest, for example, > is rising relative to distant land masses at a rate of 2.4 inches per > year. This is a MEASURED number. The rising of mountains is actually difficult to explain with plate tectonics. Growing Earth uses two possible way, by which a mountain could be lifted: one is decreasing curvature, which makes spherical pieces of the crust sit on a ball, that is slightly too large for their form. This would lift the plates off the underground in the middle of the plate. Later the middle part would break in and that would cause certain cracks, which are actually found in nature. The other mechanism is based on the assumption, that the crust is thicker beneath mountains. This would mean, that a plate has a bulge under mountains. If the plate is pulled horizontally, this bulge would leave the 'negative bulge', it was resting in before, and is pulled on a place of the mantle, which is higher. This would also cause lifting mountains. 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). E.g. the Atacama desert is very horizontal, even if the plane is about 1100m above sea-level. >> >> 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. 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. E.g. what force pushes that plate sideways? And aren't plates supposed to melt away inside the subduction zone? >> >> 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. > > 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. It is also very dense and under high 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. 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. So why and how should a piece of the crust bent down and penetrate a solid of higher density and pressure? >> 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. > > 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. And you could hardly imagine, how such rock could bent. Especially implausibly is bending of rock under water, because water cools. >> >> 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). >> >> Reason: they 'stick' to the ground and there are other 'plates' in the >> way. >> > > You haven't pushed hard enough to inelastically deform the interior of > the melon. Moreover, you're using a model where the rind thickness is > much thicker in ratio to melon diameter than is the case with the earth. You can take an egg instead of a melon. > 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. 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. Other forms are certainly possible, but would require some sort of explanation. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-26 15:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkpfmh$1ov8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386683 |
On 6/25/2016 8:24 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 20.06.2016 21:14, 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 is counter to actual surveying measurements. Everest, for example, >> is rising relative to distant land masses at a rate of 2.4 inches per >> year. This is a MEASURED number. > > 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? > > 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? > > >>> >>> 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. > > 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. > > 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. >>> >>> 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. >> >> 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? > It is also very > dense and under high pressure. Compared to what? > > 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. > > 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. > > So why and how should a piece of the crust bent down and penetrate a > solid of higher density and pressure? For the same reason an arrow penetrates a bale of cotton. > >>> 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. >> >> 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. > > And you could hardly imagine, how such rock could bent. > > Especially implausibly is bending of rock under water, because water cools. > > >>> >>> 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. > >>> >>> Reason: they 'stick' to the ground and there are other 'plates' in the >>> way. >>> >> >> You haven't pushed hard enough to inelastically deform the interior of >> the melon. Moreover, you're using a model where the rind thickness is >> much thicker in ratio to melon diameter than is the case with the earth. > > > You can take an egg instead of a melon. > > >> 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. > > 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? > Other forms are certainly > possible, but would require some sort of explanation. > > TH > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 04:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dtbh57F86s6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386708 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 14:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkrunf$1ohc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386714 |
On 6/26/2016 9:25 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > 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. yes, so? > > Since such differences would inevitably occur, the plate on top could > not stay horizontal. Nor does one expect it to. On the other hand, since the crust has some elasticity to it, you don't expect it to tip in total like a table-top. > >>> >>> 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. And the upper level does NOT stay horizontal. Already experimentally established. > > But formerly horizontal planes stay horizontal for long times (Atacama > desert) and to a astonishing degree (Portus Romae). Atacama desert is not at the point of push-up. > > 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. Where is the plate junction compared to the Atacama desert? > >>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. OK, but I think it's pointless to say that lifting is impossible because it would imply negative gravity. > >>> >>> 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. 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. Notice that there are both atmospheric and oceanic currents, though you'd have to think a little bit to understand what the force is that drives those currents. But it IS there, and it is identifiable. So then ask yourself the question whether the same root cause can be responsible for mantle currents. > > And the landscape we find in real does not fit to the expected > deformations, which such a process would create. I disagree. I think YOU have certain expectations (like the whole plate tipping upward) that are unrealistic and not actually predicted by plate tectonics, and in fact not predictable from any real properties of the crust in the first place. But YOUR naive expectations, which are unobserved, are irrelevant to what plate tectonics actually says. > > >>> >>> 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 You should read the article you cite. It is not about the melting of the subducted plate. It is about the melting of the MANTLE (which you claim is dense and stiff and cannot deform) by the addition of volatile compounds introduced by the penetrating crust. > > > .. >>>>> 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. ..." Same article: "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." > >>> 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? And what does comparing to the surface provide? > > >>> >>> 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. No sir. I would suggest some experiments with gelatin, where you have lightweight stuff on top of blobs of gelatin, and where you introduce some motion in the bowl. You'll find that the lightweight stuff gets carried underneath some of the globs of gelatin. > > 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? Loosely, yes. Not like a glue weld, but with some adhesion. Sure. > > > >>>> 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" See quote from above. > >>>>> >>>>> 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. The earth IS soft on the scale you're talking about. Here's a simple thing to consider -- asteroid impacts with stony planets like the earth. The splash albedos of craters on the moon attest to the fact that solid rock behaves a lot more like a liquid than you think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zvCUmeoHpw > > .. >>>> 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 what YOU personally can deform is irrelevant compared to geological forces. > > >>> >>> 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. That's YOUR naive expectation. It is NOT the expectation of plate tectonics. Rather than applying cartoon pictures, like soccer ball hexagons and flat conveyor belts, don't you think it would be better to read up on what plate tectonics ACTUALLY SAYS, instead of appealing to oversimplified analogies? > > 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 -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 00:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dtdogsFmeraU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386760 |
Am 27.06.2016 21:27, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>>> 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. > > yes, so? > >> >> Since such differences would inevitably occur, the plate on top could >> not stay horizontal. > > Nor does one expect it to. On the other hand, since the crust has some > elasticity to it, you don't expect it to tip in total like a table-top. > A mountain is essentially a large stone. The tectonic plate is mainly also a LARGE stone. Stones have a little elasticity, but that us negligible. So I wouldn't base a theory on the elasticity of rocks. >>>> >>>> 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. > > And the upper level does NOT stay horizontal. Already experimentally > established. It does not always stay horizontal. But is a few cases we know, that plates stay horizontal to a fraction of a degree. This is the case for Lake Trajan near Fiomicino. That was the former harbour of Rome. Since the current water line is exactly parallel to the former quays, we can be certain, that 'lifting of that lake by 8m didn't cause the slightest angle to the horizontal orientation of that building (and the plate it sits on). >> >> But formerly horizontal planes stay horizontal for long times (Atacama >> desert) and to a astonishing degree (Portus Romae). > > Atacama desert is not at the point of push-up. Well, actually the desert is quite high in the mountains. Since it was formerly a sea, the question remains, how salt-water got there. Plate tectonic assumes, it was pushed up by subduction of plates underneath. But the plane is remarkably horizontal, hence subduction for about 15 million years did not cause the ground to get tilted a bit. >> >> 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. > > Where is the plate junction compared to the Atacama desert? There is a large trench along the coast of Chile. Plate tectonics assumes, this is where the floor of the Pacific ocean bends down and dives under the Andes. My alternative explanation for that trench is, that the plate boundary is caused by growth and is actually a spreading zone. ... >> >> 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. > > 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. > Notice that there are both atmospheric and oceanic currents, though > you'd have to think a little bit to understand what the force is that > drives those currents. But it IS there, and it is identifiable. So then > ask yourself the question whether the same root cause can be responsible > for mantle currents. I simply cannot measure such currents or the solidity of the mantle. So, for now, I trust Wikipedia and assume, that the upper mantle is solid. >> >> And the landscape we find in real does not fit to the expected >> deformations, which such a process would create. > > I disagree. I think YOU have certain expectations (like the whole plate > tipping upward) that are unrealistic and not actually predicted by plate > tectonics, and in fact not predictable from any real properties of the > crust in the first place. I predict, that a plate behaves more or less like a really big stone. And this plate rests on the underground and is 'glued' there by the force of gravity. 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. The subsequent pushing of plates together would also create 'ripples'. But those are not found in reality. It is also not obvious, what forces would act in such a way. So my conclusion was, that plate tectonics assumes a mechanism, that cannot work. > But YOUR naive expectations, which are unobserved, are irrelevant to > what plate tectonics actually says. > So please help out and tell the audience, how that stretching and pushing actually works. .. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 08:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nktut4$m3u$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386768 |
On 6/27/2016 5:43 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 27.06.2016 21:27, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >>>>> 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. >> >> yes, so? >> >>> >>> Since such differences would inevitably occur, the plate on top could >>> not stay horizontal. >> >> Nor does one expect it to. On the other hand, since the crust has some >> elasticity to it, you don't expect it to tip in total like a table-top. >> > > A mountain is essentially a large stone. The tectonic plate is mainly > also a LARGE stone. Uh, no. Not at all. On geological scales, a mountain is more like compact dirt. Dirt you can push up. Dirt you can fold. Dirt you can erode with wind and water. Do you think of a river stone as being able to be folded like this? http://saturniancosmology.org/files/geology/Sect2_1a_files/1561965140_66cda99463.jpg I think you are waaaaaaaay overestimating the rigidity of mountains and plates on a geological scale, just because you cannot personally fold a plate. > > Stones have a little elasticity, but that us negligible. > > So I wouldn't base a theory on the elasticity of rocks. > >>>>> >>>>> 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. >> >> And the upper level does NOT stay horizontal. Already experimentally >> established. > > It does not always stay horizontal. But is a few cases we know, that > plates stay horizontal to a fraction of a degree. Few cases do not make a rule. > > This is the case for Lake Trajan near Fiomicino. That was the former > harbour of Rome. > > Since the current water line is exactly parallel to the former quays, we > can be certain, that 'lifting of that lake by 8m didn't cause the > slightest angle to the horizontal orientation of that building (and the > plate it sits on). >>> >>> But formerly horizontal planes stay horizontal for long times (Atacama >>> desert) and to a astonishing degree (Portus Romae). >> >> Atacama desert is not at the point of push-up. > > > Well, actually the desert is quite high in the mountains. Since it was > formerly a sea, the question remains, how salt-water got there. Because it wasn't always at that elevation. > > Plate tectonic assumes, it was pushed up by subduction of plates > underneath. > > But the plane is remarkably horizontal, hence subduction for about 15 > million years did not cause the ground to get tilted a bit. As can happen far away from the junction. > >>> >>> 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. >> >> Where is the plate junction compared to the Atacama desert? > > There is a large trench along the coast of Chile. Plate tectonics > assumes, this is where the floor of the Pacific ocean bends down and > dives under the Andes. Right, and how far away is that trench from the desert? > > My alternative explanation for that trench is, that the plate boundary > is caused by growth and is actually a spreading zone. > ... >>> >>> 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. >> >> 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." > >> Notice that there are both atmospheric and oceanic currents, though >> you'd have to think a little bit to understand what the force is that >> drives those currents. But it IS there, and it is identifiable. So then >> ask yourself the question whether the same root cause can be responsible >> for mantle currents. > > > I simply cannot measure such currents or the solidity of the mantle. > > So, for now, I trust Wikipedia and assume, that the upper mantle is solid. Wikipedia, your own article, says otherwise. See above. >>> >>> And the landscape we find in real does not fit to the expected >>> deformations, which such a process would create. >> >> I disagree. I think YOU have certain expectations (like the whole plate >> tipping upward) that are unrealistic and not actually predicted by plate >> tectonics, and in fact not predictable from any real properties of the >> crust in the first place. > > > I predict, that a plate behaves more or less like a really big stone. This is counter to measurement. > > And this plate rests on the underground and is 'glued' there by the > force of gravity. This is also counter to measurement. > > 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. > > The subsequent pushing of plates together would also create 'ripples'. > But those are not found in reality. > > It is also not obvious, what forces would act in such a way. > > So my conclusion was, that plate tectonics assumes a mechanism, that > cannot work. > > >> But YOUR naive expectations, which are unobserved, are irrelevant to >> what plate tectonics actually says. >> > So please help out and tell the audience, how that stretching and > pushing actually works. I'm sorry, are you asking me to inform you what plate tectonics actually says, rather than you bothering to learn a little about what you're talking about? > > .. > > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 22:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dtg3tkF6jc7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386806 |
Am 28.06.2016 15:43, 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. >> >>> Notice that there are both atmospheric and oceanic currents, though >>> you'd have to think a little bit to understand what the force is that >>> drives those currents. But it IS there, and it is identifiable. So then >>> ask yourself the question whether the same root cause can be responsible >>> for mantle currents. >> >> >> I simply cannot measure such currents or the solidity of the mantle. >> >> So, for now, I trust Wikipedia and assume, that the upper mantle is >> solid. > > Wikipedia, your own article, says otherwise. See above. Ok, here comes the page again: 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'.) >>>> >>>> And the landscape we find in real does not fit to the expected >>>> deformations, which such a process would create. >>> >>> I disagree. I think YOU have certain expectations (like the whole plate >>> tipping upward) that are unrealistic and not actually predicted by plate >>> tectonics, and in fact not predictable from any real properties of the >>> crust in the first place. >> >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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. But if you think for a little while about the terms 'approximation' and 'tiles', then you would certainly agree, that hexagons are a valid representation of tectonic plates. The spreading zone is represented by one side of the hexagon and the subduction zone by another side. Now the plate rises from the interior of planet Earth at the spreading zone, than moves about the ball of the Earth and then dives into it at the subduction zone (according to plate tectonics). Now you would recognise, that hexagons are wider in the middle than the length of any side. This would mean for the 'conveyor belt', that it had to widen in the middle of the journey, unless the plate wants to leave a gap. This widening had to switch to shrinking, since the plate had to fit through the subduction zone, (represented by a side of the hexagon). Now I do not see any possible force, which would cause such an effect. But something similar is needed, since Earth is ball-like (and not flat). 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. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 16:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkuprc$3nt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386835 |
On 6/28/2016 3:10 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 28.06.2016 15:43, 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. > >>> >>>> Notice that there are both atmospheric and oceanic currents, though >>>> you'd have to think a little bit to understand what the force is that >>>> drives those currents. But it IS there, and it is identifiable. So then >>>> ask yourself the question whether the same root cause can be >>>> responsible >>>> for mantle currents. >>> >>> >>> I simply cannot measure such currents or the solidity of the mantle. >>> >>> So, for now, I trust Wikipedia and assume, that the upper mantle is >>> solid. >> >> Wikipedia, your own article, says otherwise. See above. > > Ok, here comes the page again: > > 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?? > > >>>>> >>>>> And the landscape we find in real does not fit to the expected >>>>> deformations, which such a process would create. >>>> >>>> I disagree. I think YOU have certain expectations (like the whole plate >>>> tipping upward) that are unrealistic and not actually predicted by >>>> plate >>>> tectonics, and in fact not predictable from any real properties of the >>>> crust in the first place. >>> >>> >>> 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 > >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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! > > But if you think for a little while about the terms 'approximation' and > 'tiles', then you would certainly agree, that hexagons are a valid > representation of tectonic plates. > > The spreading zone is represented by one side of the hexagon and the > subduction zone by another side. > > Now the plate rises from the interior of planet Earth at the spreading > zone, than moves about the ball of the Earth and then dives into it at > the subduction zone (according to plate tectonics). > > Now you would recognise, that hexagons are wider in the middle than the > length of any side. > > This would mean for the 'conveyor belt', that it had to widen in the > middle of the journey, unless the plate wants to leave a gap. > > This widening had to switch to shrinking, since the plate had to fit > through the subduction zone, (represented by a side of the hexagon). > > Now I do not see any possible force, which would cause such an effect. > > But something similar is needed, since Earth is ball-like (and not flat). > > 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. > > > TH > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 08:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dth6ruFcq8qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386843 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 05:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec1c6b99-f712-4b93-8590-29872685fd28@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386868 |
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 2:06:59 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 28.06.2016 23:22, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > 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 I live in Santiago, Chile, where we experience for real the plate movement. Since 2010, we have experienced three large earthquakes (8.8Mw on Feb 27 2010, 8.2Mw on April 1st 2014 and 8.3Mw on Sept. 16 2015). All of them are real evidence of the South American plate going to the west over the Nazca plate (see the USGS site to check where these earthquake happened). The segment of the fault zone which ruptured in this 2010 earthquake was estimated to be over 700 km long with a displacement of almost 10 meters, or 120 years of accumulated plate movement. It lay immediately north of the 1,000 km (620 mi) segment which ruptured in the great 9.5Mw earthquake of 1960. Preliminary measurements show that the entire South American Plate moved abruptly westward during the quake. A research collaborative of Ohio State and other institutions have found, using GPS, that the earthquake shifted Santiago 28 cm to the west-southwest and moved Concepción at least 3 meters to the west. The earthquake also shifted other parts of South America from the Falkland Islands to Fortaleza, Brazil. For example, it moved Argentina's capital of Buenos Aires about 2.5 cm to the west. Several cities south of Cobquecura were also raised, by up to 3 meters. Chile's coastal range (older than 40 million years old) plus the Andes range (still growing) is also more evidence of this movement, as it is that there are in Chile 500 volcanoes, with 123 active that have erupted at least once in the Holocene period.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 19:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dtie6nFko6aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386876 |
Am 29.06.2016 14:47, schrieb paparios: > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 2:06:59 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 28.06.2016 23:22, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >> >> 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 > > I live in Santiago, Chile, where we experience for real the plate movement. Since 2010, we have experienced three large earthquakes (8.8Mw on Feb 27 2010, 8.2Mw on April 1st 2014 and 8.3Mw on Sept. 16 2015). All of them are real evidence of the South American plate going to the west over the Nazca plate (see the USGS site to check where these earthquake happened). > > The segment of the fault zone which ruptured in this 2010 earthquake was estimated to be over 700 km long with a displacement of almost 10 meters, or 120 years of accumulated plate movement. It lay immediately north of the 1,000 km (620 mi) segment which ruptured in the great 9.5Mw earthquake of 1960. Preliminary measurements show that the entire South American Plate moved abruptly westward during the quake. A research collaborative of Ohio State and other institutions have found, using GPS, that the earthquake shifted Santiago 28 cm to the west-southwest and moved Concepción at least 3 meters to the west. The earthquake also shifted other parts of South America from the Falkland Islands to Fortaleza, Brazil. For example, it moved Argentina's capital of Buenos Aires about 2.5 cm to the west. Several cities south of Cobquecura were also raised, by up to 3 meters. > > Chile's coastal range (older than 40 million years old) plus the Andes range (still growing) is also more evidence of this movement, as it is that there are in Chile 500 volcanoes, with 123 active that have erupted at least once in the Holocene period. Chile is full of volcanoes. Especially the Atacama desert and the adjacent Andes have a lot of seismic activity. And this could eventually shake the upper plates around. But the question was, if the Pacific sea-floor is vanishing in a subduction zone under South America (or not). I would say no, since the age of the sea-floor (about 20 to 40 mio. years) does not fit, since the continent is about 100 times older. But the 'diving' plate going down should be older than the material, it dives under. The sea-floor has a scale of age and the youngest is near the spreading zone. So the plates should be oldest at the subduction zone. Actually they are, but still much younger, than the plates they dive under. This would violate an assumption of plate tectonics, that plates are recycled on kind of conveyor belt. So only the newer plates show this behaviour and older plates don't. The newer plates are all under water and they have not been there, when the continental plates were young. And there have been no oceans between the continental plates. (there could have been oceans- nevertheless- but on top of that former crust) In other words: the current continents have been the entire crust of the Earth about four billion years ago. This is in fact possible, as e.g. Neal Adams shows, but on a much smaller planet. The oceans we find today are relatively new, only about a few hundred million years old (or even younger). So 'Growing Earth' assumes, that the Pacific floor goes away from Chile, while plate tectonics assumes, the floor is approaching. Relatively young (like 20 mio. years) sea-floor is an indication for spreading. Look at this: https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/image/age_oceanic_lith.jpg The red areas are spreading zones and one is directly in front of the coast of Chile. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 10:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa6a0a16-ab76-4b01-a956-1060b3a10905@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386909 |
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 1:18:18 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 29.06.2016 14:47, schrieb paparios: > > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 2:06:59 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 28.06.2016 23:22, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > > >> > >> 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 > > > > I live in Santiago, Chile, where we experience for real the plate movement. Since 2010, we have experienced three large earthquakes (8.8Mw on Feb 27 2010, 8.2Mw on April 1st 2014 and 8.3Mw on Sept. 16 2015). All of them are real evidence of the South American plate going to the west over the Nazca plate (see the USGS site to check where these earthquake happened). > > > > The segment of the fault zone which ruptured in this 2010 earthquake was estimated to be over 700 km long with a displacement of almost 10 meters, or 120 years of accumulated plate movement. It lay immediately north of the 1,000 km (620 mi) segment which ruptured in the great 9.5Mw earthquake of 1960. Preliminary measurements show that the entire South American Plate moved abruptly westward during the quake. A research collaborative of Ohio State and other institutions have found, using GPS, that the earthquake shifted Santiago 28 cm to the west-southwest and moved Concepción at least 3 meters to the west. The earthquake also shifted other parts of South America from the Falkland Islands to Fortaleza, Brazil. For example, it moved Argentina's capital of Buenos Aires about 2.5 cm to the west. Several cities south of Cobquecura were also raised, by up to 3 meters. > > > > Chile's coastal range (older than 40 million years old) plus the Andes range (still growing) is also more evidence of this movement, as it is that there are in Chile 500 volcanoes, with 123 active that have erupted at least once in the Holocene period. > > > Chile is full of volcanoes. Especially the Atacama desert and the > adjacent Andes have a lot of seismic activity. > > And this could eventually shake the upper plates around. > > But the question was, if the Pacific sea-floor is vanishing in a > subduction zone under South America (or not). > > I would say no, since the age of the sea-floor (about 20 to 40 mio. > years) does not fit, since the continent is about 100 times older. > > But the 'diving' plate going down should be older than the material, it > dives under. > > The sea-floor has a scale of age and the youngest is near the spreading > zone. So the plates should be oldest at the subduction zone. > > Actually they are, but still much younger, than the plates they dive under. > > This would violate an assumption of plate tectonics, that plates are > recycled on kind of conveyor belt. > > So only the newer plates show this behaviour and older plates don't. > > The newer plates are all under water and they have not been there, when > the continental plates were young. And there have been no oceans between > the continental plates. > > (there could have been oceans- nevertheless- but on top of that former > crust) > > In other words: the current continents have been the entire crust of the > Earth about four billion years ago. > > This is in fact possible, as e.g. Neal Adams shows, but on a much > smaller planet. > > The oceans we find today are relatively new, only about a few hundred > million years old (or even younger). > > So 'Growing Earth' assumes, that the Pacific floor goes away from Chile, > while plate tectonics assumes, the floor is approaching. > > Relatively young (like 20 mio. years) sea-floor is an indication for > spreading. > > Look at this: > > https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/image/age_oceanic_lith.jpg > > The red areas are spreading zones and one is directly in front of the > coast of Chile. > > > TH In that same image you can see some really telling facts. First, the middle Atlantic range and the west part of Africa have exactly the same shape. This is also seen in the geology of Venezuela being the same of the part of Africa where it was hundred of million of years ago. South America is moving west around 10 meters per 100 years and the earthquakes are a living proof of this. The geology also shows how the whole of India was connected with Africa and Antartica hundred of million of years ago. The growing earth hypothesis is just nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 09:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <du93flFnn0dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386910 |
Am 29.06.2016 19:28, schrieb paparios: >>> I live in Santiago, Chile, where we experience for real the plate movement. Since 2010, we have experienced three large earthquakes (8.8Mw on Feb 27 2010, 8.2Mw on April 1st 2014 and 8.3Mw on Sept. 16 2015). All of them are real evidence of the South American plate going to the west over the Nazca plate (see the USGS site to check where these earthquake happened). >>> >>> The segment of the fault zone which ruptured in this 2010 earthquake was estimated to be over 700 km long with a displacement of almost 10 meters, or 120 years of accumulated plate movement. It lay immediately north of the 1,000 km (620 mi) segment which ruptured in the great 9.5Mw earthquake of 1960. Preliminary measurements show that the entire South American Plate moved abruptly westward during the quake. A research collaborative of Ohio State and other institutions have found, using GPS, that the earthquake shifted Santiago 28 cm to the west-southwest and moved Concepción at least 3 meters to the west. The earthquake also shifted other parts of South America from the Falkland Islands to Fortaleza, Brazil. For example, it moved Argentina's capital of Buenos Aires about 2.5 cm to the west. Several cities south of Cobquecura were also raised, by up to 3 meters. >>> >>> Chile's coastal range (older than 40 million years old) plus the Andes range (still growing) is also more evidence of this movement, as it is that there are in Chile 500 volcanoes, with 123 active that have erupted at least once in the Holocene period. >> >> >> Chile is full of volcanoes. Especially the Atacama desert and the >> adjacent Andes have a lot of seismic activity. >> ... >> Look at this: >> >> https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/image/age_oceanic_lith.jpg >> >> The red areas are spreading zones and one is directly in front of the >> coast of Chile. >> >> >> TH > The east-coast of South-America does fit to the west-coast of Africa and both are similar in shape to the mid-Atlantic ridge. This fact alone proves 'Growing Earth'! You should think in shape, volume and time, not in terms of lines on a flat surface. Then you would see, this ridge is way lower than the coast. So the deepest part of the mid-Atlantic ridge and both coast form a triangle. This triangle is pointing down and behaves similar to an opening zipper, where the pieces of cloth on both sides are pulled apart. So the coast of South-America and the coast of Africa met to one piece piece of land somewhere in the remote past. Then a rift opened and the land broke into two pieces (Africa and South America.) The water from above that land could then flow into this rift, what makes sea-levels drop. Now the process repeats continuously, hence both plates move apart, the rift deepens and the sea-level drops. This is till now consistent with 'Growing Earth', since growth of Earth would require such movements of crust plates. But Plate tectonics is not consistent with such observations, since PT assumes a different mechanism. PT assumes, that plates low about the ball by a mechanism similar to a conveyor belt. PT assumes, this 'conveyor belt' would rise from the rift, move about the Earth and then 'dive' into it at a so called 'subduction zone'. Now this is not possible, since it does not explain how the coast of South-America could eventually fit to the coast of Africa (what it does). This is a problem, because PT assumes a 'conveyor belt', originating from the mid-Atlantic ridge. In this scenario the 'belts' of South America and of Africa would move into opposite directions, hence leave no possibility for a landmass, comprised of both continents, to break apart. > The growing earth hypothesis is just nonsense. No: Plate tectonic is nonsense. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 10:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Silliness about "growing earth" |
| Message-ID | <DJSdnSaMp_4yV-LKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #387426 |
On 7/8/16 7/8/16 - 2:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > The east-coast of South-America does fit to the west-coast of Africa and both > are similar in shape to the mid-Atlantic ridge. Yes. And more, fossils on those two coasts are essentially identical up until they separated; flora and fauna there remain related today. > This fact alone proves 'Growing Earth'! NONSENSE! Such theories cannot possibly be "proven". Moreover, plate tectonics is also consistent with these observations. > So the coast of South-America and the coast of Africa met to one piece piece of > land somewhere in the remote past. > Then a rift opened and the land broke into two pieces (Africa and South America.) > The water from above that land could then flow into this rift, what makes > sea-levels drop. Think about it -- the movement of these continents displaces water elsewhere, so there need be no net drop of sea levels. The sea floor is OBSERVED to be welling up out of the mid-Atlantic ridge, so there is a possibility of sea levels RISING. But subduction zones elsewhere offset this. > Now the process repeats continuously, hence both plates move apart, the rift > deepens and the sea-level drops. Nope. The mid-Atlantic ridge is not "deepening", and sea levels are rising (regardless of how much you deny it). Moreover, there are several well-known processes causing this rise: warming of the water, melting of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica, melting of glaciers on mountains around the world. Indeed, India and south China will soon face serious water shortages as the glaciers and ice pack in the Himalayas disappear and cease feeding their main rivers. > But Plate tectonics is not consistent with such observations, since PT assumes a > different mechanism. NONSENSE! Plate tectonics describes this extremely well, with further supporting information -- on each side of the mid-Atlantic ridge, the bedrock under the sea floor shows magnetism that alternates in sync with other measurements of the reversals of earth's magnetic poles. That is, the sea floor bedrock _IS_ quite similar to a "conveyor belt" that wells up from the mid-Atlantic ridge and spreads out in each direction, carrying Africa and South America apart. This is a slight simplification. Look it up for the actual details. > [... further nonsense displaying is gross ignorance] Heger knows as little about geology as he does about physics. But like so many people around here, he PRETENDS to know it all. It is rather remarkable how often it happens that people who are utterly incompetent in one area are also incompetent just about everywhere. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web