Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386843
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Time and Gravity |
| Date | 2016-06-28 16:22 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <nkuprc$3nt$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (17 earlier) <dtbh57F86s6U1@mid.individual.net> <nkrunf$1ohc$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dtdogsFmeraU1@mid.individual.net> <nktut4$m3u$2@gioia.aioe.org> <dtg3tkF6jc7U1@mid.individual.net> |
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
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