Plate Tectonics Graphics?
caryrjr
I'm not educated in these sciences. I'm hoping I can pick the brains of you
smart people.
I'm looking for a graphic or a set of graphics that will show what the
future holds as far as plate movement.
In other words... I'm looking for a graphic that will show me where Los
Angeles is expected to be 1000 years from now or 5000 years from now (just
an example). I'm really hoping to find an image or images that will cover
the entire planet.
Anyone know where I can find images like this or have an idea of the
keywords I should use in a Google search?
Thanks in advance.
Cary
caryrjr
"caryrjr" <car...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4384b949$0$40326$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
Aha! I found one:
http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/geo/geosphere/topics/plate_tectonics/plate_future.jpg
The movement is far slower than I imagined. I know it's probably very fast
in geological time. I only found this one image though. Any one know of
sites that will cover this in more detail? This is actually part of an
animated graphic
View the animation
http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/geo/geosphere/topics/plate_tectonics/plate_future.mov
Alan
car...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com (caryrjr) wrote:
http://www.usgs.gov/science/science
Alan
caryrjr
"Alan" <al...@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2005112...@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk...
> http://www.usgs.gov/science/science
>
>
>
> Alan
Thanks, Alan, but I got a 404 Error. I tried it this way
http://www.usgs.gov/science but can't find what I'm looking for.
Object not found!
The requested URL was not found on this server. If you entered the URL
manually please check your spelling and try again.
Error 404
caryrjr
>
> "Alan" <al...@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:memo.2005112...@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk...
>
>> http://www.usgs.gov/science/science
>>
>>
>>
>> Alan
>
>
> Thanks, Alan, but I got a 404 Error. I tried it this way
> http://www.usgs.gov/science but can't find what I'm looking for.
>
>
There is a lot here on plate tectonics that I will read though.
Alan
car...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com (caryrjr) wrote:
That is so weird. It wouldn't work for me this time either, but this is the Home
page and there is loads of stuff to choose from.
oriel36
The good news is that the graphics dictating crustal motion and
evolution have yet to be resolved and will look nothing like
contemporary attempts such as convection cells .
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/graphics/Fig32.gif
No point in going negative with convection cells/stationary Earth when
observed data of rotating celestial objects determine a specific
feature with a specific underlying mechanism,the profile of the Earth
and the differential rotation in the mantle which conditions that
component plates follow the profile and subsequently are affected by
the same mechanism.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
Differential rotation bands in the mantle allow the crust to sit on the
plastic-molten mantle ,move around and because the mantle does not
rotate as a single unit but in bands,the difference betwen bands
affects the fractured plates in terms of Earthquakes and volcanoes.Best
of all,it brings the Earth's shape into the realm of geology .
Give people something new next year and forget about priority and any
of that nonsense by demonstrating that while the natural geological
processes that generate Earthquakes may be far from being understood
precisely and certainly not predicted in any meaningful way,the people
investigating these things are more excited by the avenues of
investigation than they are in defending untenable positions.
caryrjr
"oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133008106.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The good news is that the graphics dictating crustal motion and
> evolution have yet to be resolved and will look nothing like
> contemporary attempts such as convection cells .
>
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/graphics/Fig32.gif
>
> No point in going negative with convection cells/stationary Earth when
> observed data of rotating celestial objects determine a specific
> feature with a specific underlying mechanism,the profile of the Earth
> and the differential rotation in the mantle which conditions that
> component plates follow the profile and subsequently are affected by
> the same mechanism.
>
> http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
>
> Differential rotation bands in the mantle allow the crust to sit on the
> plastic-molten mantle ,move around and because the mantle does not
> rotate as a single unit but in bands,the difference betwen bands
> affects the fractured plates in terms of Earthquakes and volcanoes.Best
> of all,it brings the Earth's shape into the realm of geology .
>
> Give people something new next year and forget about priority and any
> of that nonsense by demonstrating that while the natural geological
> processes that generate Earthquakes may be far from being understood
> precisely and certainly not predicted in any meaningful way,the people
> investigating these things are more excited by the avenues of
> investigation than they are in defending untenable positions.
>
Thanks for that. This is so interesting to me. I should go back to school
and learn Geology. Well. that or Astronomy. I love reading this newsgroup.
I learn something new everyday.
Thank you.
Cary
Skywise
news:4388b12a$0$99863$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
<Snipola>
> Thanks for that. This is so interesting to me. I should go back to
> school and learn Geology. Well. that or Astronomy. I love reading this
> newsgroup. I learn something new everyday.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Cary
Cary, you've already recognized JP for what he is, this oriel
guy is in the same category.
It's great that you want to learn, but these psuedoscientists
are not the ones to pay attention to.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Like censorship and not getting support help? Switch to Supernews!
caryrjr
"Skywise" <in...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in message
news:11ohg1n...@corp.supernews.com...
> "caryrjr" <car...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:4388b12a$0$99863$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
>
> <Snipola>
>> Thanks for that. This is so interesting to me. I should go back to
>> school and learn Geology. Well. that or Astronomy. I love reading this
>> newsgroup. I learn something new everyday.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Cary
>
> Cary, you've already recognized JP for what he is, this oriel
> guy is in the same category.
>
> It's great that you want to learn, but these psuedoscientists
> are not the ones to pay attention to.
There were a lot of things that didn't make sense to me in what he said, but
I thought it was my lack of knowledge. In fact I had originally replied
with a bunch of questions, but decided not to send them because I didn't
want to look like I was asking dumb questions. In other words- what he said
didn't seem right to me based on the little I do know, but I didn't want to
make myself look like a fool by questioning him. Thanks for the warning.
;-)
Skywise
news:4388e094$0$43984$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
<Snipola>
> There were a lot of things that didn't make sense to me in what he said,
> but I thought it was my lack of knowledge. In fact I had originally
> replied with a bunch of questions, but decided not to send them because
> I didn't want to look like I was asking dumb questions. In other words-
> what he said didn't seem right to me based on the little I do know, but
> I didn't want to make myself look like a fool by questioning him.
> Thanks for the warning. ;-)
Some things you may find useful:
Why People Believe Weird Things
http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/WPBWT/index.html
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit
http://www.carlsagan.com/revamp/carlsagan/baloney.html
caryrjr
> "caryrjr" <car...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:4388e094$0$43984$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
>
> <Snipola>
>> There were a lot of things that didn't make sense to me in what he said,
>> but I thought it was my lack of knowledge. In fact I had originally
>> replied with a bunch of questions, but decided not to send them because
>> I didn't want to look like I was asking dumb questions. In other words-
>> what he said didn't seem right to me based on the little I do know, but
>> I didn't want to make myself look like a fool by questioning him.
>> Thanks for the warning. ;-)
>
> Some things you may find useful:
>
> Why People Believe Weird Things
> http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/WPBWT/index.html
>
> Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit
> http://www.carlsagan.com/revamp/carlsagan/baloney.html
Aha! Sagan all but mentions both Jean and oriel36 by name. lol
Thanks, Brian.
Cary
Aidan Karley
> Aha! Sagan all but mentions both Jean and oriel36 by name. lol
>
Welcome to the newsgroup.
--
Aidan Karley FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
oriel36
It is indeed interesting which is the way it should be.
You always have the option of remaining with convection
cells/stationary Earth which was not a bad attempt for its time -
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/unanswered.html
If you want to come to something better then there is always using the
Sun's observed differential rotation as a guide to what is going on in
the mantle which affects the crustal plates you are standing on -
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
You get the mechanism for the Earth's shape and a partial mechanism for
crustal evolution,crustal motion and subsequently terrestial surface
features and short term events like Earthquakes and volcanoes.
Differential rotation bands are for people to enjoy as much as they are
an exciting geological avenue that links astronomical observations with
what is occuring beneath our feet.As observable nature dictates the
conditions and the reasoning which links crustal motion and the Earth's
shape through a single rotational mechanism, I do not condemn you for
you condemn yourselves .If convection cells is all you can manage then
so be it.
caryrjr
"Aidan Karley" <doIlookDAFT...@validEMAILaddressTOa.NEWS.group>
wrote in message
news:VA.00000a7...@validemailaddresstoa.news.group...
> In article <438900a3$0$77076$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
> Caryrjr wrote:
>> Aha! Sagan all but mentions both Jean and oriel36 by name. lol
>>
> They are rather predictable, aren't they? <G>
After Brian warned me about oriel36 I went and looked up some of his other
posts with Google Groups and his style is very similar to Jean's. They
both attack the poster for not believing their theories or ideas and then go
off on long rants and raves that use a lot of big words and kooky ideas. My
guess is there is probably meth involved.... or a cocktail of
anti-psychotics (that aren't working).
> Welcome to the newsgroup.
Thanks. It's very interesting here. Kooks and all. :-D
Cary
oriel36
however the same people who label me as one thing or another can be
identified as followers of a man who singlehandedly destroyed the
greatest insight in Western civilisation - Copernican heliocentricity
and its resolution through retrogrades.
This time lapse footage and explanation of a faster moving Earth
overtaking the slower outer planets is correct -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
This corrupt Newtonian resolution for retrogrades is in utter contempt
of the original Copernican resolution through retrogrades by
introducing an uneccessary and inappropriate imaginary observer on the
Sun.
"For to the earth they [ Planetary Motions] appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct.." Newton
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
Poverty is not knowing the true value of things and the Copernican
insight still is a jewel regardless of the assault on it by Newtonian
empiricists who simply never grasped the original reasoning.
There is nothing like the experience of grasping something for the
first time and for those who acquire the priviledge of the Copernican
experence,the corrupt Newtonian notions will mean nothing.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
The Symmetry of the Universe
"32 In this arrangement, therefore, we discover a marvelous symmetry
of the universe, and an established harmonious linkage between the
motion of the spheres and their size, such as can be found in no other
way. For this permits a not inattentive student to perceive why the
forward and backward arcs appear greater in Jupiter than in Saturn and
smaller than in Mars, and on the other hand greater in Venus than in
Mercury. This reversal in direction appears more frequently in Saturn
than in Jupiter, and also more rarely in Mars and Venus than in
Mercury. ....All these phenomena proceed from the same
cause, which is in the earth's motion.
Copernicus
Again it is a question of the gift of knowing the value of things
regardless of consensus.
Aidan Karley
> > They are rather predictable, aren't they? <G>
>
> After Brian warned me about oriel36 I went and looked up some of his other
> posts with Google Groups and his style is very similar to Jean's.
>
encountered. Oh well, English is a flexible language and I can now point to
your example as my justification for saying "Horse style is good for the
roses".
> My
> guess is there is probably meth involved.... or a cocktail of
> anti-psychotics (that aren't working).
>
braincell-minutes than it deserves. I propose dropping it in the styler and
moving onto something interesting <G>.
oriel36
Yeah, join you and your colleagues in ignoring the largest known
geological feature -the shape of the planet.
Now that takes some doing !.
Skywise
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
With nearly 6 billion people on the planet, ask yourself why
you are the only one to have made this 'significant' observation.
oriel36
It most certainly is significant and the geologists know it.
They also know that differential rotation in the mantle which generates
the geological feature of the Earth's shape replaces a convection
cell/stationary Earth mechanism for in order for one to exist the other
must go.
Observation of the behavior of rotating celestial objects dictates a
mechanism that serves both the dynamics behind the Earth's shape and
the motion of the component crustal plates which profile the Earth's
mantle.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
That image of our rotating parent star does all the work and label me
what you will, I am rightly proud of bringing up the association
between the Earth's shape and crustal motion through a common mechanism
and that it is not at all difficult to comprehend.
Skywise
>"oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:1133200548.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
>> To Aidan
>>
>> Yeah, join you and your colleagues in ignoring the largest known
>> geological feature -the shape of the planet.
>>
>> Now that takes some doing !.
>
>With nearly 6 billion people on the planet, ask yourself why
>you are the only one to have made this 'significant' observation.
>
>Brian
"oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1133288651.067933.222610
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Every time someone asks you a question about your claim, your answer
is to restate your claim.
If there is a human parrot, it's you.
Of course, none of your parroting answers the question, which I restate,
With nearly 6 billion people on the planet, why are you
the only one to make this "significant" observation?
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Like censorship and not getting support help? Switch to Supernews!
They won't even answer questions through your ISP!
Aidan Karley
do with the different rotation frequencies of different latitudes of
the Sun, but he appears to be neglecting the viscosity of the mantle.
I can't actually remember what Oriel was maundering on about
when I dropped him in my killfile. ISTR something to do with rotations,
but expressed with the clarity of thought one would expect from a
well-decomposed invertebrate.
Skywise
in news:VA.00000a9...@validemailaddresstoa.news.group:
> I still don't know what Oriel is going on about. Something to
> do with the different rotation frequencies of different latitudes of
> the Sun, but he appears to be neglecting the viscosity of the mantle.
> I can't actually remember what Oriel was maundering on about
> when I dropped him in my killfile. ISTR something to do with rotations,
> but expressed with the clarity of thought one would expect from a
> well-decomposed invertebrate.
Something along the lines that just like the sun has different
rotation speeds at different latitudes, the earth's mantle does
as well, and that this is the cause of the equatorial bulge, and
from that all things seismic.
The problem is with his claim regarding the cause of the bulge.
But besides all that, he's just a kook, and a classic one at
that. He makes a claim and the only explanation for any questions
regarding his claims is his original claim, quoted verbatim.
George
I'd like to know how a picture of the sun "does all the work". It's a
picture. It doesn't do ANY work.
George
George
"Aidan Karley" <doIlookDAFT...@validEMAILaddressTOa.NEWS.group>
wrote in message
Hahahaha!!! Or the clarity of two day old tea.
George
oriel36
You poor bugger,you have 3 centuries of empirical indoctrination
working against you and insofar as differential rotation between
Equatorial and polar regions is an observed and a physically real
dynamic where a plastic-molten mantle is involved,it is no big leap to
apply it to the motion of component plates and from there to
Earthquakes and the development of terrestial surface features.
I do not claim anything,nature dictates it and that is why the whole
thing is so satisfying -
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
Hard to argue against an observed physical situation and given that the
densities and compositions in the Earth's mantle are unique to the
Earth,the dynamics for all rotating bodies with a viscuous nature are
the same.Your 40 km deviation from a perfect sphere or the Equatorial
bulge as it is known has one and only one mechanism.
So poor is the convection cells/stationary Earth mechanism that I won't
even ask where you get the Equatorial bulge from !.It is just that
silly after acknowledging that the plastic-molten mantel does not
rotate as a single unit from pole to pole but has uni-directional
differential rotation bands.
oriel36
Here is what you adhere to -
http://www.platetectonics.com/book/images/Convection.gif
http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/~jean/GEOL3005/PlateTectonics/Convection.html
These convection cells/stationary Earth concepts are well written with
all the clarity you would expect from your community.
For all your labelling and killfiling,the actual mechanism derived from
observed motions of celestial objects is incredibly easy to work with
and comprehend ,if not as I propose it then with the actual observed
rotation of the Sun as a guide.
One of the great satisfactions is that I do not need to convince anyone
as observed nature does it just fine.
Skywise
oriel36
comments on geology,you would only make a bigger fool of yourself then
you already are.
You would probably get aberdeen angus here to support you but otherwise
nobody is going to challenge the natural observation of differential
rotation that produces an awareness that the Earth's shape is a
geological feature.
Sigh all you will,ultimately there are too many effiminate characters
around sighing over astronomical and geological material.Be a good boy
and disappear into your celestial photography and pretend that you are
an astronomer.
Skywise
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Let's see you avoid the question again...like the good trained
psuedoscientist you are.
Why is it with nearly 6 billion people on the planet that YOU
are the only one who finds this of some significance?
obstinate imbecile....
Alan
(Skywise) wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1133457953.810985.294510
> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > That sorts you out,crawl back to your celestial cataloguing and forget
> > comments on geology,you would only make a bigger fool of yourself then
> > you already are.
> >
> > You would probably get aberdeen angus here to support you but otherwise
> > nobody is going to challenge the natural observation of differential
> > rotation that produces an awareness that the Earth's shape is a
> > geological feature.
> >
> > Sigh all you will,ultimately there are too many effiminate characters
> > around sighing over astronomical and geological material.Be a good boy
> > and disappear into your celestial photography and pretend that you are
> > an astronomer.
>
> Let's see you avoid the question again...like the good trained
> psuedoscientist you are.
>
> Why is it with nearly 6 billion people on the planet that YOU
> are the only one who finds this of some significance?
Because he thinks differently to you.
>
> obstinate imbecile....
No! You are just a sheep who thinks what he is told to, and like all sheep, you
resent anybody who dares to question your little neat and tidy world. But the
problem is that it all gets so uncertain the closer you observe it.
Aidan Karley
> > You would probably get aberdeen angus here to support you but otherwise
>
is Aidan ; Angus was one of my classmates and lives on the otherside of
town. Haven't seen him for the best part of a year since we met in the tile
shop.)
> > nobody is going to challenge the natural observation of differential
> > rotation that produces an awareness that the Earth's shape is a
> > geological feature.
> >
>
This would be *your* (birdy's) natural observation of differential
rotation, as happens in the Sun for reasons that I've never heard of being
explained. The only suggestion of "differential rotation" in the Earth that
I'm aware of (and I do keep a closer eye on the literature than most
people) has been between the inner core and the mantle, and amounts to
small fractions of a radian per year. This might be one of the driving
forces behind the Earth's magnetic field, or it might be a consequence of
the Earth's magnetic field - no one is sure. And the claimed observation is
by no means universally accepted by seismologists outside the group making
the claim.
The kinetic energy stored in such a rotation is tiny compared to the
potential energy stored in the oblateness of the figure of the Earth.
That's why the oblateness of figure was first demonstrated in the late
1700s, and the *claimed* differential rotation of the core wasn't suggested
until the late 1990s - a lot of work went into the engineering and
technology of measurement in the intervening couple of centuries.
Sorry Brian, just realised I was answering our twittering friend
through your message.
oriel36
No offense Alan but far from bothering to question the type of
mindnumbing reasoning of these guys it is far easier to let natural
observations dictate the agenda and the avenues.None of the early
heliocentrists cared much for attacking the older system of the
Ptolemaics and there explanation for retrogrades through epicycles,they
simply grafted in the annual orbital motion of the Earth which infers
heliocentricity and then worked on refining the system such as the
Keplerian and Roemerian refinements.
Rather than take a closer examination at convection cells/stationary
Earth,the better resolution involves standing further back and taking a
look at the Earth in motion and especially the plastic-molten
mantle.Considering that the Equatorial bulge is assigned a mechanism
based on a vague reference to axial rotation,the Earth's shape and the
profile which the component plates follow has an easier solution
through differential rotation bands in the rotating mantle.
What are fluid engineers doing given that the dynamics of a moving
fluid or gas in a rotating celestial object is extremely difficult to
ignore.This is why I have to constantly refresh the observation of the
Sun's rotation as a guide for the mechanism which causes the Earth's
shape to deviate from a perfect sphere.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
Aberdeen Angus and his pal are stuck with a convection cells/stationary
Earth mechanism,they may absolutely detest that the mechanism but
having no literature availible on differential rotation bands they are
forced to grovel in what must be a horrible position of being neither
intuitive,original or intelligent.
For everyone else,it should be just a matter of course that the
Earth's shape comes under the geological umbrella without undue fuss
and from what I can make of the brief outlines,it is comfortable to
work with the Earth's rotating dynamics for the shape and the motion of
the component plates .It is difficult if impossible to imagine a
different way to generate the Equatorial bulge other than the mechanism
of differential rotation bands already observed in other rotating
objects.
Do you know what Alan,it is also fun.
oriel36
You are obviously out of you depth with the material so I suggest you
stick with what you know -
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath182.htm
The diiferential rotation bands in the mantle generate both the
deviation from a perfect sphere and the motion of component plates.It
replaces a convection cells /stationary Earth mechanism for crustal
motion and introduces the Equatorial bulge within the geological
umbrella.
Again,you are out of your league so I suggest you stick to teaching
those who know no better .The generation of Earth's shape and the
motion of the component plates is strictly a product of 20th/21st
century thinking where the late 17th century ideas now are only
conceptual obstacles,anyone who cares to consider the differential
rotation bands in the mantle and how the component plates profile the
shape of the mantle can do so with ease by using observed differential
rotation .
Nobody is going to be shocked when genuine men investigate the
mechanism which simultaneously generates the Earth's shape and crustal
motion leaving you to stew in your convection cells.
Alan
geraldk...@yahoo.com (oriel36) wrote:
> No offense Alan but far from bothering to question the type of
> mindnumbing reasoning of these guys it is far easier to let natural
> observations dictate the agenda and the avenues.None of the early
> heliocentrists cared much for attacking the older system of the
> Ptolemaics and there explanation for retrogrades through epicycles,they
> simply grafted in the annual orbital motion of the Earth which infers
> heliocentricity and then worked on refining the system such as the
> Keplerian and Roemerian refinements.
LOL But my Grandad was something of a comedian, and his cousin may have, or
may not have, gone to America, and became an ever bigger comedian and even got a
day named after him, and sometimes I just kind of follow in his footsteps :-)
Hey, you have got Einstein on your web-page and I quote:
Time and space are relative to the motion of an observer and they are not
independent of each other. Time and space are connected to make four-dimensional
spacetime (three dimensions for space and one dimension for time). This is not
that strange---we often define distances by the time it takes light to travel
between two points. For example, one light year is the distance light will
travel in a year. To talk about an event, you will usually tell where (in space)
and when (in time) it happened. The event happened in spacetime.
and:
Special Relativity also predicts that matter can be converted into energy and
energy in to matter. By applying Newton's second law of motion to the energy of
motion for something moving at high speed (its ``kinetic energy''), you will
find that energy = mass в (speed of light)2. More concisely, this is Einstein's
famous equation, E = mc2. This result also applies to an object at rest in which
case, you will refer to its ``rest mass'' and its ``rest energy'', the energy
equivalent of mass.
Hey, didn't I tell them that matter can be converted into energy and energy in
to matter? But they just go on quoting what they were taught without giving it
any thought. Aberdeen Angus and his pals probably never read anything of what
Einstein actually wrote. As for Newton, they probably don't know who he was.
Skywise
news:memo.2005120...@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk:
<Snipola>
> No! You are just a sheep who thinks what he is told to, and like all
> sheep, you resent anybody who dares to question your little neat and
> tidy world. But the problem is that it all gets so uncertain the closer
> you observe it.
Oh..please...make me laugh. If you really knew me, as in knew
me in person, you'd realize just how wrong your opinion is.
Believe me, my refusal to go along with what everyone else is
thinking has gotten me into more trouble than I care to relate.
Skywise
news:1133544739....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
<Snipola>
YEP!! Skipped the question yet again....I think I'll go
back to talking to my brick wall.
Skywise
wrote in news:VA.00000ac...@validemailaddresstoa.news.group:
<Snipola>
> Sorry Brian, just realised I was answering our twittering friend
> through your message.
Not a problem. I figure you probably have them killfiled so the
only way you'd see them was through someone elses reply.
Alan
(Skywise) wrote:
> YEP!! Skipped the question yet again....I think I'll go
> back to talking to my brick wall.
>
> Brian
It sure beats trying to talk to your boring mates.
Lord Cerne Abbas
Humpty Dumpty Bush fell off the Iraq wall.
Humpty Dumpty Bush had a big fall.
All his spin doctors and all the President's men
couldn't put Humpty Dumpty Bush together again.
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/identity.html
oriel36
> find that energy = mass × (speed of light)2. More concisely, this is Einstein's
> famous equation, E = mc2. This result also applies to an object at rest in which
> case, you will refer to its ``rest mass'' and its ``rest energy'', the energy
> equivalent of mass.
>
> Hey, didn't I tell them that matter can be converted into energy and energy in
> to matter? But they just go on quoting what they were taught without giving it
> any thought. Aberdeen Angus and his pals probably never read anything of what
> Einstein actually wrote. As for Newton, they probably don't know who he was.
>
>
> Alan
>
> http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/enigma.html
>
> http://veloceraptor.blogspot.com/
Relativists are a symptom of the Newtonian disease and are even more
unlikely to comprehend the dynamics of differential rotation bands
simultaneously generating the Earth's shape and crustal motion than
Newtonians.
I read what the originator of the 1905 concept had to say and it is
frightening for its vacuousness and especially that the concept could
be found in the science fiction section of a bookstore in 1898 *.
So,keeping in mind that it is far more productive to consider the
actual (do you understand the word 'actual' ) observation of a rotating
celestial object comprised of something other than a solid,you can keep
you homocentric relativistic nonsense.
I had been comfortable enough to post Aberdeen Angus a site with the
usual garbage of the Equatorial bulge all adorned with Newtonian and
relativistic nonsense,obviously doing this is a dangerous thing
considering how you managed to turn the observation of differential
rotation bands into a response based on who does and who does not
understand Albert or Isaac.
It is people like you who turn investigation of celestial and
terrestial phenomena into a stinking cistern instead of the fountain it
really is.
*
"'Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause
required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that
Time is only a kind of Space"
http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html
"What does the word 'spacetime' mean?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It means that in our universe, 3-dimensional space and time form a
single indivisible new physical object which has 4 dimensions. All
physical laws and phenomena seem to require thinking about space and
time as this blended object. That's what Einstein's relativity theories
were all about. "
Alan
geraldk...@yahoo.com (oriel36) wrote:
> Relativists are a symptom of the Newtonian disease and are even more
> unlikely to comprehend the dynamics of differential rotation bands
> simultaneously generating the Earth's shape and crustal motion than
> Newtonians.
But he was right about energy and mass being interchangeable.
> I read what the originator of the 1905 concept had to say and it is
> frightening for its vacuousness and especially that the concept could
> be found in the science fiction section of a bookstore in 1898 *.
>
> So,keeping in mind that it is far more productive to consider the
> actual (do you understand the word 'actual' ) observation of a rotating
> celestial object comprised of something other than a solid,you can keep
> you homocentric relativistic nonsense.
It is quite obvious that when something spins, that it will try to adopt a
disc-like shape. What is so surprising about that?
> I had been comfortable enough to post Aberdeen Angus a site with the
> usual garbage of the Equatorial bulge all adorned with Newtonian and
> relativistic nonsense,obviously doing this is a dangerous thing
> considering how you managed to turn the observation of differential
> rotation bands into a response based on who does and who does not
> understand Albert or Isaac.
Oh sorry, your majesty, but the problem with that gif is that I have a number of
security features in place that prevented it spinning, and it wasn't until I
used two browsers that I found it was rotating. Why don't you make a wav or
rm file instead?
> It is people like you who turn investigation of celestial and
> terrestial phenomena into a stinking cistern instead of the fountain it
> really is.
Oh really? Well had you bothered to look around, then you might have checked out
my Dragonscience page, made in honour of Amy Acheson. The whole universe is
electric in nature.
> It means that in our universe, 3-dimensional space and time form a
> single indivisible new physical object which has 4 dimensions. All
> physical laws and phenomena seem to require thinking about space and
> time as this blended object. That's what Einstein's relativity theories
> were all about. "
>
> http://einstein.stanford.edu/
I hate to disagree, but there has to be thirteen dimensions, at least.
oriel36
Alan wrote:
> In article <1133593783.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> geraldk...@yahoo.com (oriel36) wrote:
>
>
> > Relativists are a symptom of the Newtonian disease and are even more
> > unlikely to comprehend the dynamics of differential rotation bands
> > simultaneously generating the Earth's shape and crustal motion than
> > Newtonians.
>
> But he was right about energy and mass being interchangeable.
>
The notation 'c' or what you know as the speed of light is actually an
astronomical adjustment known as the Equation of Light or Mora
Luminis.The fact that this astronomical adjustment is buried in a
mathematical notation with absolutely no relevence nor reference to
what the original Equation of Light actually does is just another facet
of this intellectual empirical holocaust.
There is nothing left for you and your colleagues to destroy.
> > I read what the originator of the 1905 concept had to say and it is
> > frightening for its vacuousness and especially that the concept could
> > be found in the science fiction section of a bookstore in 1898 *.
> >
> > So,keeping in mind that it is far more productive to consider the
> > actual (do you understand the word 'actual' ) observation of a rotating
> > celestial object comprised of something other than a solid,you can keep
> > you homocentric relativistic nonsense.
>
> It is quite obvious that when something spins, that it will try to adopt a
> disc-like shape. What is so surprising about that?
>
You are nothing but a miserable creep like the others here,a rotating
plastic-molten celestial sphere will display a deviation from a
perfect sphere due to the dynamics of a fluid in motion or what amounts
to the same thing,anything other than a solid in motion will display a
deviation from a perfect sphere.
The main thrust is that the mechanism which causes the Equatorial bulge
replaces the convection cell/stationary Earth mechanism.
Your response is indeed typical of somebody who has a vague notion that
differential rotation bands in the Earth's mantle is correct but whoes
intutive faculties are so rotted with Newtonian/ relativistic nonsense
that you would lose control of the usefulness of insight or direct it
to junk novelties.
> > I had been comfortable enough to post Aberdeen Angus a site with the
> > usual garbage of the Equatorial bulge all adorned with Newtonian and
> > relativistic nonsense,obviously doing this is a dangerous thing
> > considering how you managed to turn the observation of differential
> > rotation bands into a response based on who does and who does not
> > understand Albert or Isaac.
>
> Oh sorry, your majesty, but the problem with that gif is that I have a number of
> security features in place that prevented it spinning, and it wasn't until I
> used two browsers that I found it was rotating. Why don't you make a wav or
> rm file instead?
>
> > It is people like you who turn investigation of celestial and
> > terrestial phenomena into a stinking cistern instead of the fountain it
> > really is.
>
> Oh really? Well had you bothered to look around, then you might have checked out
> my Dragonscience page, made in honour of Amy Acheson. The whole universe is
> electric in nature.
>
> > It means that in our universe, 3-dimensional space and time form a
> > single indivisible new physical object which has 4 dimensions. All
> > physical laws and phenomena seem to require thinking about space and
> > time as this blended object. That's what Einstein's relativity theories
> > were all about. "
> >
> > http://einstein.stanford.edu/
>
> I hate to disagree, but there has to be thirteen dimensions, at least.
>
The basis for your dimensions comes from a fictional 1898 'Time
Machine' novel,therefore you have far more in common with Aberdeen
Angus and his pal than you do with anything I present.
Insofar as axial rotation is an indepdent motion which generates the
differential rotation bands it also provides the point of departure of
how the wisdom of the early heliocentrists adapted the pre-Copernican
equable 24 hour day to axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24
hours/360 degrees in total.
Newtonians could'nt even get that basic fact right which is why you and
you spacetime freaks still think the value for axial rotation through
360 degrees is 23 hours 56 min 04 sec -
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
That empirical sidereal 'fact' determines that you are the most
mindnumbingly stupid people ever to set foot on the planet,that is not
an insult nor an offense,it is the one true fact.
Alan
geraldk...@yahoo.com (oriel36) wrote:
*snip*
Do you know what? I conclude that you just have to be another *arrogant*
*bastard* who sees no other point of view but your own, in which case it is you
who are the fool, not I.
Alan
al...@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk (Alan) wrote:
> In article <1133691939....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> geraldk...@yahoo.com (oriel36) wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
> Do you know what? I conclude that you just have to be another *arrogant*
> *bastard* who sees no other point of view but your own, in which case it is
> you who are the fool, not I.
And quite frankly, any teacher like you, has no clue what fun is, and your
students must find you so boring, apart from being so damn condescending and
arrogant. What must it be like for them to try and ask you questions? I pity
them all.
Alan
al...@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk (Alan) wrote:
> In article <memo.2005120...@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk>,
> al...@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk (Alan) wrote:
>
> > In article <1133691939....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > geraldk...@yahoo.com (oriel36) wrote:
> >
> > *snip*
> >
> > Do you know what? I conclude that you just have to be another *arrogant*
> > *bastard* who sees no other point of view but your own, in which case it is
> > you who are the fool, not I.
>
> And quite frankly, any teacher like you, has no clue what fun is, and your
> students must find you so boring, apart from being so damn condescending and
> arrogant. What must it be like for them to try and ask you questions? I pity
> them all.
Furthermore, I have now pulled all links to your stupid web-site. Arseholes like
you always tell me my web-site is somewhat childlike in places, but how do you
get children interested in science other than by making things fun?
Hey, everybody wants to be a rockstar or run a big business, and nobody wants to
be a scientist any more, and it it any wonder with pricks like you claiming to
be teachers? You are just a fucking jerk.
Now I don't often sink to this level, but you have pissed me off with your
goddam arrogance, so why don't you just F.O.A.D?
oriel36
Your relativistic/Newtonian concepts are cartoons,they are fun in the
same way cartoons are fun but I would not care to listen to people who
promote celestial or terrestial phenomena using cartoon conceptions
such as Newton did.
I will say one thing,the real Copernican insight ( which Newton
temporarily destroyed through his utterly stupid resolution for
retrogrades ) takes well to the contemporary medium of the internet,it
is enjoyable and satisying to go outside and put what can be viewed
through time lapse footage into perspective.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
When people become comfortable enough with what they observe and their
participation in heliocentric orbital motion they can comfortably
assign the corrupt Newtonian view to the cartoon perspective from which
it emerged -
"For to the earth they [planetary motions] appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct.."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
You only see what you want to see but that would make you a typical
brainwashed empiricist, a ditherer in natural phenomena with no roots
and little substance.Anybody who does approach observed differential
rotation bands as a guide to what is going on in the mantle and the
common mechanism for the planet's shape and crustal motion will be
rewarded and in turn will make humanity more aware of their home planet
,the ground they are standing on , their astromnomical motions and how
all these things mesh and seperate.
You want 13 dimensions well be my guest,Aberdeen Angus and his pal will
oblige you no doubt in your common cartoon heritage.
Alan
geraldk...@yahoo.com (oriel36) wrote:
Come on, please do tell me, how many of your students have you berated and
humiliated because they didn't give you precisely the answer you required? Look
at the way you are now trying to berate and humiliate me.
And how old are your students? How many are children that you have put off
learning science for life? And IMHO, if any are children and you treat them the
way you try to treat me then that makes you nothing but a *child* *abuser*
Now please do us all a favour and F.O.A.D. or I might just add a link into this
conversation via Google Groups into my Abuse of Women and Children blog.
I hate *child* *abusers* and I think they should be wiped off the face of the
planet and you have made yourself the worst enemy you will ever see, just like
that jerk who told me "This is America" and that I didn't know anything about
it. I bet he now wishes that he had never said it, but still he is too arrogant,
like you, to phone me back and apologise. And I certainly hope he enjoys Nemesis
News.
Firebird
Never trust anybody who is too sophisticated to own a rubber chicken.
Skywise
oriel36
What makes you believe that you are any different than Aberdeen Angus
and his pal,no doubt your styles make you different but when all is
said and done , all you really have done is not talk of how Newton
destroyed the reasoning behind heliocentricity or to be productive ,how
differential rotation bands generate the Earth's shape and move the
component plates.
So bad is your empirical ideology that the Americans would prefer to
believe in creationism rather than adhere to the sterile gnosticism
that passes itself off as the 'scientific method' which arose with
Newton.Youir reaction is more or less typical for it feeds on the same
mediocrity from whence it came and as long as you make people and
children believe the 'greatness' of Newton the more this charade
continues at the expense of people who cannot defend themselves,the
destruction of genuine Western achievements of Copernican/Keplerian
astronomy and the dilution of the Western merit system which celebrates
its real heroes.
This is a guide to the generation of the Earth's equatorial bulge -
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
The professional accuser has managed to undermine even the idea of what
family is,people like you who shout abuser knowing only too well that
even the strong bend or turn away from the accustation whether
justified or not and many men now suffer from the feebleminded.The most
innocent topic like what causes the component plates to move can
quickly dissolve by the hands of an accuser into something different
making you an extreme version of Aberdeen Angus and his pal.
You play a political end game using Newtonian 'scientific method' which
is damn all different than the communist ideologies,so bad is it that
the Americans would prefer creationist ideologies than go alomng with
the sterile empiricism which destroys so much of Western intutive
heritage.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics.html
You could get away with your putrid and festering doctrines until now
for ultimately your inability to discuss the technical matters of
geology and astronomy highlights your true nature as stupid
incompetents rather than malicious.
Alan
geraldk...@yahoo.com (oriel36) wrote:
*snip*
Sorry! All your words have somehow slipped away.
*snigger*
Lord Cerne Abbas
Humpty Dumpty Bush fell off the Iraq wall.
Humpty Dumpty Bush had a big fall.
All his spin doctors and all the President's men
couldn't put Humpty Dumpty Bush together again.
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/identity.html
Me
> KOOK FIGHT!!!!!
More like a Kook Cage Match....
Alan
(Me) wrote:
No contest really.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gravity-05q.html
Einstein's Relativity Theory Proven With The 'Lead' Of A Pencil
Manchester, UK (SPX) Nov 10, 2005
Scientists at The University of Manchester have discovered a new way to test
Einstein's theory of relativity using the 'lead' of a pencil.
Until now it was only possible to test the theory by building expensive
machinery or by studying stars in distant galaxies, but a team of British,
Russian and Dutch scientists has now proven it can be done in the lab using an
ultra-thin material called Graphene.
The group, led by Professor Andre Geim of the School of Physics and Astronomy,
discovered the one atom thick material last year. Graphene is created by
extracting one atom thick slivers of graphite via a process similar to that of
tracing with a pencil.
Professor Geim, said: "To understand implications of the relativity theory,
researchers often have to go considerable lengths, but our work shows that it is
possible to set up direct experiments to test relativistic ideas. In theory,
this will speed up possible discoveries and probably save billions of pounds now
that tests can be set up using Graphene and relatively inexpensive laboratory
equipment."
In a paper published in Nature (November 10, 2005), the team describes how
electric charges in Graphene appear to behave like relativistic particles with
no mass (zero rest mass). The new particles are called massless Dirac fermions
and are described by Einstein's relativity theory (so-called the Dirac
equation).
The team also reports several new relativistic effects. They have shown that
massless Dirac fermions are pulled by magnetic fields in such a manner that they
gain a dynamic (motion) mass described by the famous Einstein's equation E=mc2.
This is similar to the case of photons (particles of light) that also have no
mass but can still feel the gravitational pull of the Sun due their dynamic mass
described by the same equation.
Dr Kostya Novoselov, a key investigator in this research, added: "The integer
and fractional quantum Hall effects are two of the most remarkable discoveries
of the late 20th century. It is not easy to explain their significance but both
discoveries led to Nobel prizes. One can probably appreciate the importance of
our present work in terms of fundamental physics, if I mention that one of the
phenomena we report is a new, relativistic type of the quantum Hall effect."
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gravity-05q.html
So who do we believe, a kook with an attitude or the scientists from Manchester
University? My money is on Manchester University.