Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386806
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Time and Gravity |
| Date | 2016-06-28 08:43 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <nktut4$m3u$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <dt8p65FlokvU1@mid.individual.net> <nkpfmh$1ov8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dtbh57F86s6U1@mid.individual.net> <nkrunf$1ohc$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dtdogsFmeraU1@mid.individual.net> |
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
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