Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386683
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Time and Gravity |
| Date | 2016-06-26 03:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dt8p65FlokvU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (10 earlier) <nja0io$f8q$1@gioia.aioe.org> <drs573Fn3ahU1@mid.individual.net> <njc63j$7h3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dsk20pFh77iU1@mid.individual.net> <nk9f9a$1vt4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
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
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 11:09 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:38 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:35 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:20 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-04 06:34 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:36 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-05 05:03 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 15:35 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-07 15:52 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 11:26 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 10:42 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-08 01:55 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 22:24 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-08 23:24 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-10 01:24 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-12 10:19 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 08:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 22:39 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 15:52 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-09 05:13 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:39 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-10 07:23 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-10 13:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-11 06:35 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-17 11:09 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-18 06:46 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-19 12:02 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-19 14:17 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-20 05:59 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 15:45 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-23 22:39 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 16:06 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-24 07:09 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 07:49 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-24 09:52 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-24 17:31 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 13:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-06-24 12:57 -0600
Re: Time and Gravity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-24 12:08 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 04:35 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 20:12 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 20:31 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-24 23:48 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 08:13 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-25 09:04 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:33 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-26 03:34 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 15:33 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-27 23:58 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 08:26 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-11 06:30 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-13 09:50 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-13 07:40 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-14 07:14 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 05:54 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 07:03 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-25 14:00 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-06-25 18:31 +0000
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 05:02 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:32 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-12 06:30 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-12 08:27 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:07 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 07:23 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 14:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-26 03:24 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 15:59 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-27 04:25 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 14:27 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-28 00:43 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 08:43 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-28 22:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 16:22 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 08:06 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 05:47 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 19:18 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:28 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-08 09:36 +0200
Silliness about "growing earth" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-08 10:45 -0500
Re: Silliness about "growing earth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-09 07:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Alejandro Bellucci <alejb@yahoo.info> - 2016-07-08 17:49 +0000
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:08 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 18:46 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 12:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 19:45 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 13:02 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-30 07:41 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 05:12 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:46 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 22:16 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 15:54 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-02 07:25 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-06 04:18 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 23:28 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-06 23:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:23 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:36 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-09 13:18 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:25 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-10 07:05 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:41 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 08:54 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:17 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:37 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 11:11 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 10:13 -0700
csiph-web