Relativity question
Doink
I understand the principle, that this translates to a BIG number and thus a
lot of energy is contained in matter. Yes, matter is essentially frozen
energy. Stipulated.
By I'm thrown by the SPEED of light thing. If something has a mass of 10
grams and I multiply it by 386,000 mph it doesn't make sense. Is there a
scientific conversion from speed to some other unit????? How do you
multiply mass times speed? Or is it just representational? Can the
explanation be simplified?
Doink.
Hilton Evans
> OK, Energy = Mass X Speed of Light Sq.
>
> I understand the principle, that this translates to a BIG number and thus a
> lot of energy is contained in matter. Yes, matter is essentially frozen
> energy. Stipulated.
>
> By I'm thrown by the SPEED of light thing. If something has a mass of 10
> grams and I multiply it by 386,000 mph it doesn't make sense.
First if your multiplying by just speed then you're using the formula
incorrectly.
> Is there a
> scientific conversion from speed to some other unit????? How do you
> multiply mass times speed? Or is it just representational? Can the
> explanation be simplified?
1 erg (cgs unit of energy) = 1 gram x cm^2/sec^2. Notice this has
the same units as kinetic energy i.e. mass x speed^2.
10 grams x c^2 = 10 x (2.997925x10^10 cm/sec)^2 = 9.0x10^21 ergs, or
9000 billion billion ergs. Don't try this conversion at home.
--
Hilton Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Webcam Astroimaging
http://home.earthlink.net/~hiltonevans/astroimaging/astroimaging.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com
Doink
my purposes, I don't need to carry out the formula, just be able to
understand the relationship between what's expressed as speed figuring into
a formula involving mass. Your explanation was exactly what I was looking
for. Thank you!
Doink
"Hilton Evans" <snav...@snotspam.net> wrote in message
news:Wasdf.8237$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Sam Wormley
Nothing to do with velocities--
The conversion factor is c^2, which does not have units of velocity.
Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy-content?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
Skywise
news:VaidnRMEAvlO1Ove...@trueband.net:
You can't mix metric and non-metric units without conversion.
One way to express the formula with comparable units is:
energy in joules
mass in kilograms
speed of light in meters/sec (299,792,458)
One conversion is 1kg mass = 89,875,517,873,681,764 joules.
From there, you should be able to convert to any other units
you like.
For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2
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?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts
Paul Winalski
wrote:
It all comes from the definition of energy.
Let's start with speed. The speed of an object is the distance it
travels in a unit amount of time. In standard MKS units, it's thus
measured in meters/sec (m/s). Speed is equal to distance traveled
divided by the time it took to cover the distance. Note we're
dividing meters by seconds and there's nothing strange or odd about
it.
Acceleration is the change in speed of an object per unit time. It's
thus measured in meters/second-squared (m/s**2).
The force required to produce a particular acceleration is
proportional to the mass of the object being accelerated. (F=ma).
Hence the MKS unit for force, the Newton, is one
kilogram*meter/second-squared (Kg*m/s**2).
Energy is a force applied over a distance. Hence the MKS unit for
energy, the Joule, is one Newton-meter, or one
kilogram*meter-squared/second-squared (Kg*m**2/s**2).
Power is energy expended per unit time. Hence the MKS unit for
power, the Watt, is one Joule/second (Kg*m**2/s**3). Utilities
sell electricity in energy units (power applied over time), which
is why it's sold in kilowatt-hours (one kilowatt-hour is 3600000
Joules).
So now go back to Einstein's formula: E=m*c**2. The MKS unit for E
is the Joule, for m is the kilogram, and for c is meters/second. So
you can see it all works out--we get Kg*m**2/s**2, the correct units
for a Joule.
-Paul W.
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.
oriel36
The so-called 'genius' of reducing the astronomical effect due to
finite light speed to mathematical notation 'c' is just another way to
conceal the geometrical roots of the insight byOle Roemer.
Like Kepler,Roemer made his observations of the anomalous motion of Io
from an orbitally moving Earth and resolved the anomaly by attributing
a variation in distance between the heliocentric orbits of Earth and
Jupiter.The anomalous motion is not an illusion in the true sense for
the effect is observed.
Everybody's problems begin with Isaac for the resolution for
retrogrades is made from the Earth's annual orbit (Copernicus) and
variations in orbital speed are likewise resolved directly (Kepler).As
Isaac makes no allowances for the Romerian insight,that little jewel
remains hidden within Newton's mangling of the Copernican insight.
"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of
that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
Behind all the linguistic tinsel is the original Romerian insight on
finite light distance,observed from a moving Earth and resolved by the
orbital motion of Earth and Jupiter -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
That garbage in 1905 represents the temporary interruption of geometry
from astronomical principles in favor of theoretical guesswork,an
interuption that began with Newton and snowballed into relativistic
homocentricity.
Perhaps astronomers will again re-discover Roemer's insight for the
tiny light effect seen within the solar system is almost total at the
scale of the Universe in terms of the position of galaxies to our home
galaxy.
oriel36
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Roemer-1677/Roemer-1677.html
Finte light distance is an astronomical effect that is neither an
illusion nor does it represent an actual physical motion,it can't be
added,divided or squared and it remains an astronomical principle
hijacked by dumb theorists who do not know the value of the Mora
Luminis.
Sam Wormley
> To Sam
>
> The so-called 'genius' of reducing the astronomical effect due to
> finite light speed to mathematical notation 'c' is just another way to
> conceal the geometrical roots of the insight byOle Roemer.
>
For Gerald -- Measuring the Speed of Light
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/images/jupiter.jpg
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed_evidence.html
William Hamblen
wrote:
>OK, Energy = Mass X Speed of Light Sq.
You do have to use consistent units (j, kg, m/sec).
The reasons are the speed of light in a vacuum being constant for all
observers and the principle of equivalence. You can work it out using
a little algebra. See a textbook on modern physics for the details.
Doink
Doink
"Paul Winalski" <pr...@ZAnkh-Morpork.mv.com> wrote in message
news:e2lcn1lo38gmmsu0k...@4ax.com...
oriel36
The Romerian jewel of this particular refinement of Copernican
heliocentricity is an observational effect.Using the rotation of the
foreground Milky Way stars and observed supernova representing external
parent galaxies,it is one of the most exciting avenues of astronomy
since Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity.
You homocentric freaks won't even recognise how heliocentricity is
inferred through retrogrades and being incompetent have diluted the
Copernican insight to a worthless and self serving,
cretinous,relativistic end.
http://www.answers.com/topic/copernican-principle
You are too dumb to recognise that dropping the stellar background from
the motions of the planets and substituting the background with the
annual orbital motion of the Earth infers heliocentricity.You freaks of
humanity imagine that an observer on the Sun is required -
"For to the earth they 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
If you can live with that Newtonian garbage you can live with anything
but don't even try to comprehend the Keplerian or Roemerian refinements
to true heliocentricity.
Go hug your telescopes but that is all you have but that never made a
person an astronomer.
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>>To Sam
>>>
>>>The so-called 'genius' of reducing the astronomical effect due to
>>>finite light speed to mathematical notation 'c' is just another way to
>>>conceal the geometrical roots of the insight byOle Roemer.
>>>
>>
>> For Gerald -- Measuring the Speed of Light
>> http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/images/jupiter.jpg
>> http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed_evidence.html
>
>
> The Romerian jewel of this particular refinement of Copernican
> heliocentricity is an observational effect.Using the rotation of the
> foreground Milky Way stars and observed supernova representing external
> parent galaxies,it is one of the most exciting avenues of astronomy
> since Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity.
>
> You homocentric freaks won't even recognise how heliocentricity is
> inferred through retrogrades and being incompetent have diluted the
> Copernican insight to a worthless and self serving,
> cretinous,relativistic end.
>
ILLUCID
Llanzlan Klazmon
news:UfudnYxKoK2Ay-ve...@trueband.net:
> That's what I was looking for....A sort of scientific conversion unit.
> For my purposes, I don't need to carry out the formula, just be able to
> understand the relationship between what's expressed as speed figuring
> into a formula involving mass. Your explanation was exactly what I was
> looking for. Thank you!
You can use any units you like as long as you are consistant. The most
commonly used systems in science and engineering are either the cgs system
as used by Hilton or the mks system. Mixing units gets you into trouble as
NASA found out a while back when one of their Mars probes missed!!
Klazmon.
David G. Nagel
> "Doink" <skyma...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:UfudnYxKoK2Ay-ve...@trueband.net:
>
>
>>That's what I was looking for....A sort of scientific conversion unit.
>>For my purposes, I don't need to carry out the formula, just be able to
>>understand the relationship between what's expressed as speed figuring
>>into a formula involving mass. Your explanation was exactly what I was
>>looking for. Thank you!
>
>
>
> You can use any units you like as long as you are consistant. The most
> commonly used systems in science and engineering are either the cgs system
> as used by Hilton or the mks system. Mixing units gets you into trouble as
> NASA found out a while back when one of their Mars probes missed!!
>
> Klazmon.
>
The best unit of measurement that I have found is: Furlongs per
fortnight. It features a long base measurement that can be expanded to a
very long distance with out accumulating much error due to calibration
and a long time base which can also reduce error due to the long base
line. 8^)...
Posted April First.....
lal_truckee
>
> You can use any units you like as long as you are consistant. The most
> commonly used systems in science and engineering are either the cgs system
> as used by Hilton or the mks system.
I've always been amused by the mixed units - there is no "unitary"
system of units (which would be meters-grams-seconds: mgs) while there
is a 1/100 meters-grams-second (cgs) and a meters-1000 grams-seconds
(mks) system. Quelle bizarre.
Brian Tung
> By I'm thrown by the SPEED of light thing. If something has a mass of 10
> grams and I multiply it by 386,000 mph it doesn't make sense. Is there a
> scientific conversion from speed to some other unit????? How do you
> multiply mass times speed? Or is it just representational? Can the
> explanation be simplified?
The problem is that energy is a pretty abstract concept. You can't
point to some place on a brick and say, "There's its energy," the way
you can spread your hand against it and say, "That's its width," or
pick it up and say, "That's how much it weighs."
Nevertheless, if you drop a brick from shoulder height onto your foot,
it'll hurt a lot and may break some bones if it's heavy enough, whereas
the same brick if dropped from a height of an inch will merely make you
look foolish. The only real difference between the two situations is
the speed with which the brick hits your foot. In one case, the brick
strikes your foot with a gentle thud, and in the other, it has had some
time to build up speed and land on your foot with considerable impact.
Some enterprising soul may have decided to try to quantify this effect,
and rather than using his foot as the impact meter, decided to use some
other absorbing substance. We might use styrofoam, for instance. If
you drop a brick onto a block of styrofoam, it sinks partway in before
coming to a stop. That's because the styrofoam exerts an upward force
on the brick, and it take some time before enough force has been applied
to bring the brick to a complete stop.
If you stack two bricks, one on top of the other, before dropping them
onto the styrofoam, the pile will sink further in (assuming you drop
it from the same height as before), because the styrofoam exerts just
as much force as before, and that same force has to be applied for more
time to stop the greater brickage. For "ideal" styrofoam, we might
determine that the indentation is just twice as deep as before; for a
pile of three bricks (with therefore three times the brickage), it would
be three times as deep; and so on.
Alternatively, we could drop one brick as before, but from a greater
height, and see how much higher we have to go before we also get twice
as deep an indentation, or three times, or whatever. Again assuming
that we have ideal styrofoam, we find that we need only drop it from
twice as great a height, or three times, or whatever.
As a result of these observations, we might define a new quantity,
called *energy*, which is a measure of the impact with which the brick
hits the styrofoam. Since it's proportional to brickage for a given
height, and also proportional to height for a given brickage, we might
assume that it would be proportional to brickage times height, and we
would be right--except that we probably want a more dignified and
general term for "amount of stuff" in the brick than "brickage."
Following Newton, we use the term "mass." In that case, we can write
E = kmh
where E, m, and h stand for energy, mass, and height, respectively,
and k is the constant of proportionality. What would that be? With
hindsight, it is not so hard to see. If we were on the Moon, for
instance, dropping a brick is not as painful as it is on the Earth,
since the Moon's gravity is weaker. We might guess, then, that it is
the Earth's gravity, denoted g, that is the constant of proportionality,
which gives us
E = gmh
We emphasize that there is no obvious physical interpretation of this
product of three quantities. It's not as though you're measuring the
volume of the brick and therefore multiply the three dimensions. The
energy is just a quantity we defined to measure a property of interest.
Then again, we need not drop the brick. We can throw it from the side,
and as long as we attain whatever speed was derived from gravity when
we dropped it, we should get the same effect. To find out what that
effect is, we need to find out what speed a brick achieves when dropped
from a height of h. It turns out to be
v = sqrt(2gh)
where v is the square root function. In that case, we also have
v^2 = 2gh, (v^2)/2 = gh, and then
E = (mv^2)/2
which you might notice has the same units as mc^2 in Einstein's
equation. In the mks system, mass is measured in kilograms, and
velocity in meters per second. Thus, energy is measured in units of
kilogram-meters-squared-per-second-squared, an ungainly mouthful that
is given the special unit name of "joule." For instance, according
to this formula, a brick with a mass of 1 kilogram and a velocity of
4 meters per second (about 9 mph) is 8 joules, since half of 4
squared is 8.
You may have noticed that these formulas describe the energy of the
brick at two different moments in time. The first gives the energy
of the brick before it's been dropped, whereas the second gives the
energy just before it hits the styrofoam (or your foot). We can put
it another way: the first gives the energy due to the brick's position,
which we call its potential energy; and the second gives the energy
due to the brick's velocity, which we call its kinetic energy. It's
better therefore to write them as we often do, as
PE = mgh
KE = (1/2) mv^2
where I've slightly reformatted the equations according to tradition.
Incidentally, those equations can characterize the brick at different
points throughout its fall, not just at the start and at the end. At
the start, a brick's PE might be 16 joules, but since it's not moving,
its KE must be zero. Conversely, as it strikes the styrofoam, its KE
is 16 joules, but since its height is zero, its PE has to be zero, too.
It's tempting to think that throughout the fall, the KE plus the PE
must be 16 joules, and that thought turns out to be true: Although both
KE and PE are constantly changing, with KE increasing and PE decreasing,
they change in such a way that their *sum* is constant.
Another way of saying this is that the brick's total energy is
conserved. There's no reason why this *has* to be true--it's just our
common experience that it *is* true. You can raise the brick back to
its original height, thus restoring its PE--but then in order to do
that, you have to use up at least 16 joules worth of energy. In fact,
you have to exert more, the rest of it being wasted as heat.
There are lots of conservation laws, by the way: conservation of energy,
of linear momentum, of angular momentum, and so forth. Before Einstein
formulated his theory of relativity, there was also a law of the
conservation of mass. This seems pretty straightforward, since in
everyday experience, you can't just destroy mass; we merely shuffle it
from one place to another. We can burn wood, it is true, and in so
doing, it seems to vanish, but careful chemical experiments demonstrated
that what really happened was that the wood was oxidized and the loss of
mass in the wood we burned was really transformation into carbon dioxide
and other molecules that dispersed into the air. So it seemed that mass
really was conserved.
But then Einstein came along and demonstrated convincingly that mass was
just another form of energy--albeit extremely concentrated. This was
his famous formula E = mc^2. (Incidentally, that mass is relativistic
mass. Physicists generally prefer to deal with proper mass, also known
as rest mass, in which case the formula is the somewhat less pithy
E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4, where p is the object's momentum.) Note, though,
that this formula still gives energy in good old units of kilogram-
meters-squared-per-second-squared, or joules. It is therefore entirely
consistent with the definitions of PE and KE.
By Einstein's law, we can make mass vanish, but in doing so, we produce
an enormous amount of energy. In order to build up enough velocity to
create 16 joules upon impact, we must drop a 1-kilogram brick from a
height of about 1.6 meters (about 5 feet), assuming g = 10 meters per
second per second. That same brick, if converted entirely into energy
according to Einstein's formula, would yield an amazing 90 million
billion joules. This conversion is what allows the Sun, for instance,
to get such wholesale returns of energy from such a trifling investment
of hydrogen (to paraphrase Twain for a moment).
It works the other way around, too: We can create matter, provided we
throw in enough energy. There's a catch, though. Whenever we create a
particle, it seems we have to create its corresponding antiparticle.
We can create an electron if we put in about a million electron volts of
energy (electron volts are also units of energy, which are much smaller
than joules and therefore convenient when dealing with subatomic
particles), but we have to create the anti-electron, too, also known as
the positron. There doesn't seem to be any way around this, and--you
guessed it--this too has to do with conservation laws.
Finally, an electron volt is called that because it's the amount of
energy required to push an electron "the wrong way"--say, from a
battery's positive terminal to its negative terminal--across a potential
of one volt. In other words, to push an electron through a wire from
the nubby end of a AA battery to its flat end requires an investment of
1.5 eV. You can see why electron volts are so tiny.
Nevertheless, it's the same kind of energy, which is why you can create
energy by using gravity (usually falling water instead of falling
bricks), and using that energy to push electrons the wrong way--uphill,
so to speak. Then you let them go the natural way, and they can power
your appliances.
--
Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt
Martin Brown
> Doink wrote:
>
>>By I'm thrown by the SPEED of light thing. If something has a mass of 10
>>grams and I multiply it by 386,000 mph it doesn't make sense. Is there a
>>scientific conversion from speed to some other unit????? How do you
>>multiply mass times speed? Or is it just representational? Can the
>>explanation be simplified?
>
> The problem is that energy is a pretty abstract concept. You can't
> point to some place on a brick and say, "There's its energy," the way
> you can spread your hand against it and say, "That's its width," or
> pick it up and say, "That's how much it weighs."
>
> Nevertheless, if you drop a brick from shoulder height onto your foot,
> it'll hurt a lot and may break some bones if it's heavy enough, whereas
> the same brick if dropped from a height of an inch will merely make you
> look foolish. The only real difference between the two situations is
> the speed with which the brick hits your foot. In one case, the brick
> strikes your foot with a gentle thud, and in the other, it has had some
> time to build up speed and land on your foot with considerable impact.
This is what I found so scary about the OPs question. It isn't really
about relativity at all but about basic classical kinetic energy.
You can measure velocity more or less directly by Doppler shift, but
without knowing the mass of the moving object there is no way to find
its energy.
Momentum delivered to the foot scales with velocity, but the energy
delivered and damage inflicted scales with velocity squared.
>
> Some enterprising soul may have decided to try to quantify this effect,
One place where the effects of kinetic energy are felt in ordinary life
are the stopping distances for a car. The thinking time increases
linearly with speed, but the distance needed to make an emergency stop
by braking hard scales with the square of the initial speed.
It would go some way to explaining the prevalence of high speed
tailgating if many people have no idea how much further it will take
them to stop at high speeds.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Brian Tung
> This is what I found so scary about the OPs question. It isn't really
> about relativity at all but about basic classical kinetic energy.
Tell me about it. I set out to write a reasonably short (well, four
or five paragraphs, really) bit about why energy has the units it does,
and I just couldn't close the explanation without all that extra text.
(Really.)
oriel36
Sam Wormley wrote:
O.K.
http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/7404.jpg
See that picture of Jupiter's moon Io,well there is an observational
effect in that image directly related to Ole Romer's original
discovery.
The original discovery was known as the Equation of Light or Mora
Luminis and refers to the positional adjustment due to the finite
distance light travels.
As the resolution is entirely geometrical and based on the variations
in the heliocentric motions between Jupiter and Earth,the anomalous
slowing down and speeding up of Io's motion as it orbited Jupiter was
accounted for as an observation an effect,its motion neither actual nor
an illusion.Looking at the image above of Io and its shadow,it true
position as viewed from an orbitally moving Earth can only be
considered from the point of view of a mean motion.Just like the
Equation of Time equalises the variations in the natural unequal day to
the equable 24 hour day then so does the Equation of Light equalise the
anomalous motions hence the astronomical use of the word 'equation'
which has nothing in common with its non geometric counterpart.
So,let's take Newton apart -
" Some inequalities of time may arise from the Excentricities of
the Orbs of the Satellites; [etc.]... But this inequality has no
respect to the position of the Earth, and in the three interior
Satellites is insensible, as I find by computation from the Theory of
their Gravity. " Opticks 1704
The inequality of times sure does from the motion and position of the
Earth , Io happens to be Jupiter's innermost satellite and Roemer's
insight has nothing to do with gravity.
It is easier to comprehend Roemer's insight without having to go
through the bluffing and blustering of Newton and I assume there are
people who would not mind accepting the real challenge that Roemer's
insight provides.
The uncharted territory of modelling the positions of galaxies to the
rotation of the foreground Milky Way stars using supernova data and
Roemer's insight is breathtaking but the outlines of these mountainous
regions for real human endeavor is still laid low by the manipulations
of a 17th century theorist who had no feel for these things.
All this rubbish of source dependence or homocentric observer depedence
is really uneccessary for no such perceptions are astronomically
demanded no more than the speed of sound and the passage of a jet
plane requires that you jump from a plane view to an earth based view
and grapple with what the person hears.It is not even that interesting
and in matters of finite light speed,it is entirely useless.
This era is more crucial than any else for a silence has descended
borne of Newtonian/relativistic novelistic exhaustion,whether a number
of people resolve to take a conceptual audit going right back to the
transfer of pre-Copernican astronomy to Copernican heliocentricity,the
golden opportunity to restore a much needed balance will be lost.
It may be that Western empirical cancer will kill the astronomical
discipline entirely and another civilisation will pick it up as
happened before for no civilisation can live with this insincerity that
hijacks genuine accomplishments and spins a myth from misconduct and
intellectual fraud.That is what Newtonian ballistics applied to
planetary motion amounts to.
oriel36
Pity you do not practice what you preach or maybe it is that you are
incapable of spotting a technical error out of indoctrination or
incompetence.
The Earth's axial rotation through 360 degrees on its axis is a single
and distinct event.It does not rely on any external reference no more
that any other object in motion does.
The original designation of time as hours,minutes and seconds emerged
from a concept of the equable 24 hour day,this was transfered to the
principle of indepedent axial rotation by the early heliocentrists as
rotation at 15 degrees per hour.They knew no external reference for
indepdent axial rotation existed for they retained the pre-Copernican
noon Equation of Time correction in order to fix clocks to axial
rotation.
The siderealists/Newtonians attribute TWO values for axial rotation by
using external references,one rotation through 360 degrees to the Sun
in 24 hours exactly and one rotation through 360 degrees to the stars
in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.It does not happen except in diseased minds
who know no better however those minds are some of the biggest
institutions on the planet.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
The point of the story is that this unethical 23 hours 56 min 04 secs
of a 24 hour day has no astronomical justication and is simply a
homogenised calendrical average for axial and orbital motion.Poor fools
may like the word 'consistent' but I assure you that your system is the
most astronomical unstable system ever devised.No wonder you resort to
relativistic homocentricity to get out of Newtonian
quasi-geocentricity.
Shawn
> http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/7404.jpg
Strangepersons.com huh?
snip
> So,let's take Newton apart -
>
> " Some inequalities of time may arise from the Excentricities of
> the Orbs of the Satellites; [etc.]... But this inequality has no
> respect to the position of the Earth, and in the three interior
> Satellites is insensible, as I find by computation from the Theory of
> their Gravity. " Opticks 1704
>
> The inequality of times sure does from the motion and position of the
> Earth , Io happens to be Jupiter's innermost satellite and Roemer's
> insight has nothing to do with gravity.
>
> It is easier to comprehend Roemer's insight without having to go
> through the bluffing and blustering of Newton and I assume there are
> people who would not mind accepting the real challenge that Roemer's
> insight provides.
>
> The uncharted territory of modelling the positions of galaxies to the
> rotation of the foreground Milky Way stars using supernova data and
> Roemer's insight is breathtaking but the outlines of these mountainous
> regions for real human endeavor is still laid low by the manipulations
> of a 17th century theorist who had no feel for these things.
http://sts.synflood.de/dump/fun/thanksinfobuddyJesus_dedcat_002.jpg
Llanzlan Klazmon
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> To Klazmon
>
> Pity you do not practice what you preach or maybe it is that you are
> incapable of spotting a technical error out of indoctrination or
> incompetence.
A pity you can't read and therefore post a total non sequitur to the topic
of this thread.
Klazmon
<SNIP>
oriel36
A brute mentality has no feel for astronomy or astronomical methods,it
always shows in your replies insofar as this place is less like a forum
and more like a chatroom.
It is easy to see that Newton transfered Flamsteed's axial
rotational/stellar circumpolar equivalency at 23 hours 56 min 04 sec
to a heliocentric/geocentric orbital equivalency but Newtonian
disciples like you never seem to recognise the misconduct,not just
Falmsteed's erroneous 'proof' for his conceptual equivalency but
Newton's also .
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
Newton was getting his mean Sun/Earth distances from Flamsteed's
burying of the exquisite Equation of Time principles by homogenising
axial and orbital motion into a calendrical average and dumping the
difference between the 24 hour day and the average calendrical return
of a star to the same position in a .986 deg/3 min 56 sec orbital
displacement.
What a shortcut !,what a mess but a vwery convenient one for
quasi-geocentrists and Newtonians -
"PHENOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
I recommend that people who wish to become heliocentric astronomers
first become familiar with the Copernican resolution for retrogrades
which infers the Earth to remain orbitting the Sun and jettisoning any
approach that finds the Sun around the Earth (Like Newton did0 to be
valid in any shape or form.
If the price of following Newton is that the English will be
highlighted as people with creationist like mentalities the I am sure
many will be quite pleased but I have appealed for as long as I can for
a neccesary astronomical conceptual audit and not engage in the
exotic expansion of Newtonian quasi-geocentricity into relativistic
homocentricity.
There has to be at least a few people willing to engage this dire
situation brought on by 17th century misconduct
Ioannis
news:1132053892.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> To Klazmon
[snip]
> There has to be at least a few people willing to engage this dire
> situation brought on by 17th century misconduct
Is there *anyone* here who's managed to understand what this guy is trying
to say in *any one* of his posts? :-)
--
I. N. Galidakis
Eventually, _everything_ is understandable
oriel36
You will no doubt perfectly understand the National Matime Museum's
explanation for the sidereal day and its astronomical justification -
"Each solar day the Earth rotates 360º with respect to the Sun.
Similarly the Earth rotates 360º with respect to the background stars
in a sidereal day. During each solar day, the motion of the Earth
around the Sun means the Earth rotates 361º with respect to the
background stars."
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000
Maybe you would like that Wikipedia variation -
"sidereal time is larger by one hour (note that it wraps around at 24
hours). "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
These things are a long way from the exquisite Equation of Time
correction which straddles pre-Copernican and heliocentricic astronomy
and fixes the principle of axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour to
axial rotation and 24 hours/360 degrees in total.
You are just freaks of humanity is the way you think and justify your
calendrically based celestial sphere.Get the relationship betwen axial
and orbital motion wrong and you can forget astronomy.
Skywise
<Snipola.
> Is there *anyone* here who's managed to understand what this guy is trying
> to say in *any one* of his posts? :-)
Perhaps with all the concentration on manufacturing oseltamivir
there's now a shortage of psychotropics.
oriel36
You are the freak who believes in convection cells as a mechanism for
crustal motion.
Go study fluid dynamics and observe that rotating fluid/gas celestial
objects display both differential rotation and an Equatorial bulge.
As the only person alive to recognise that the Earth's deviation from a
perfect sphere constitutes a geological feature I have no problem
working out exactly what Newton only guessed at.The uni-directional
differential rotation bands running in great rivers in the
fluid-plastic mantle generate the Bulge,supply the evolution of new
crust and partialy influence terrestial surface features.
It would be nice if the geologists started to recognise the largest
terrestial feature of all - the shape of the planet.
As for you,stick with your midget minded convection cells and your
stationary Earth ,if any person wants to observe what differential
rotation bands look like they can take it from the Sun -
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
Differential rotation bands in the fluid-plastic mantle cause the Earth
to deviate from a perfect sphere because to imagine otherwise is to
make the Earth and exception.I could not give a damn if you understood
the principle or not,as far as I can see you intellectual midgets do
not know what to do when encountering common sense
descriptions,astronomical,terrestial and bottom line.
Skywise
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> To Brian
Didn't I tell you to zark off once already?
> You are the freak who believes in convection cells as a mechanism for
> crustal motion.
Why is it that pseudoscientists must always resort to such childish
name calling when someone calls their cards?
> Go study fluid dynamics and observe that rotating fluid/gas celestial
> objects display both differential rotation and an Equatorial bulge.
The equatorial bulge is nothing more than the result of centrifugal
forces acting on a spinning body.
> As the only person alive to recognise
That tells a lot. Have you given any thought as to why you and only
you have recognised this supposedly important fact? Are you special
in some way?
> that the Earth's deviation from a perfect sphere
The Earth deviates from a perfect sphere by less than 3/10ths of
one percent. Other planets in the solar system are more oblate
than the Earth.
> constitutes a geological feature I have no problem
> working out exactly what Newton only guessed at.The uni-directional
> differential rotation bands running in great rivers in the
> fluid-plastic mantle generate the Bulge,supply the evolution of new
> crust and partialy influence terrestial surface features.
Mars exhibits an equatorial bulge 2.2 times larger than the Earth.
If the bulge is caused as you say, then why does Mars not exhibit
"terrestial [sic] surface features" similar to, nay, more extant
than on Earth? Having a larger equatorial bulge implies - using
your theory - differential rotation bands of greater magnitude
than on Earth. If these motions are so much greater, why is Mars
so geologically "dead"?
> It would be nice if the geologists started to recognise the largest
> terrestial feature of all - the shape of the planet.
>
> As for you,stick with your midget minded convection cells and your
> stationary Earth ,if any person wants to observe what differential
> rotation bands look like they can take it from the Sun -
>
> http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
The Sun is a plasma/gas. The earth is a solid/liquid. Let's
compare apples to apples, shall we?
Oh, by the way, the Sun's equatorial bulge is over 300 times less
than the Earth's. Yet it exhibits far more of your "differential
rotation bands" than the Earth does.
> Differential rotation bands in the fluid-plastic mantle cause the Earth
> to deviate from a perfect sphere because to imagine otherwise is to
> make the Earth and exception.
Hmmm...the Sun exhibits differential rotation bands to a far greater
extent than the Earth. Why then is the Sun's equatorial bulge 373
times SMALLER than the Earths? If differential rotation bands "cause"
the equatorial bulge as you claim, why is the Sun's so much smaller
than the Earth's?
> I could not give a damn if you understood
> the principle or not,as far as I can see you intellectual midgets do
> not know what to do when encountering common sense
> descriptions,astronomical,terrestial and bottom line.
Again with the childish name calling and ranting. Is your position
so weak that you can't defend it otherwise?
oriel36
Skywise wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1132088226.690071.98160
> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > To Brian
>
> Didn't I tell you to zark off once already?
>
>
> > You are the freak who believes in convection cells as a mechanism for
> > crustal motion.
>
> Why is it that pseudoscientists must always resort to such childish
> name calling when someone calls their cards?
>
You are a freak who believes that convection cells are the mechanism
for crustal motion,this is not an offensive statement but roughly
correct given that you have a real mechanism in differential rotation
bands in front of you.
>
> > Go study fluid dynamics and observe that rotating fluid/gas celestial
> > objects display both differential rotation and an Equatorial bulge.
>
> The equatorial bulge is nothing more than the result of centrifugal
> forces acting on a spinning body.
>
Centrifugal forces,yeah,yeah yeah,this has been the story for hundreds
of years and it will tell you why the Earth and all rotating celestial
objects are spheres but it is useless to explain deviations from a
perfect sphere.
I wonder if there are any other bright sparks who can grasp this easy
to understand and observable principle.
>
> > As the only person alive to recognise
>
> That tells a lot. Have you given any thought as to why you and only
> you have recognised this supposedly important fact? Are you special
> in some way?
>
Perhaps you are the one who is special for it takes quite an effort to
miss the shape of the Earth as a geological feature.Unless you live in
a cave you would know that the Earth's fractured crust is composed of
plates that are subject to rotational forces in the plastic-molten
mantle.As all rotating celestial objects display both differential
rotation and a bulge,it takes quite a special person to ignore it.
Want to see it again ? -
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
>
> > that the Earth's deviation from a perfect sphere
>
> The Earth deviates from a perfect sphere by less than 3/10ths of
> one percent. Other planets in the solar system are more oblate
> than the Earth.
>
>
> > constitutes a geological feature I have no problem
> > working out exactly what Newton only guessed at.The uni-directional
> > differential rotation bands running in great rivers in the
> > fluid-plastic mantle generate the Bulge,supply the evolution of new
> > crust and partialy influence terrestial surface features.
>
> Mars exhibits an equatorial bulge 2.2 times larger than the Earth.
> If the bulge is caused as you say, then why does Mars not exhibit
> "terrestial [sic] surface features" similar to, nay, more extant
> than on Earth? Having a larger equatorial bulge implies - using
> your theory - differential rotation bands of greater magnitude
> than on Earth. If these motions are so much greater, why is Mars
> so geologically "dead"?
>
The composition of the mantle changes from planet to planet as does the
rates of rotation.If you wish to argue differential rotation bands out
of existence in order to keep convection cells as a mechanism for
crustal motion then be my guest.
Btw,it is not a theory,the shape of a rotating celestial object will be
a sphere,a deviation from a perfect sphere (and 40 km is not small
deviation over the total shape of the Earth) can be ascertianed from
observing uni-directional differential rotation bands.
>
> > It would be nice if the geologists started to recognise the largest
> > terrestial feature of all - the shape of the planet.
> >
> > As for you,stick with your midget minded convection cells and your
> > stationary Earth ,if any person wants to observe what differential
> > rotation bands look like they can take it from the Sun -
> >
> > http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
>
> The Sun is a plasma/gas. The earth is a solid/liquid. Let's
> compare apples to apples, shall we?
>
> Oh, by the way, the Sun's equatorial bulge is over 300 times less
> than the Earth's. Yet it exhibits far more of your "differential
> rotation bands" than the Earth does.
>
Geologists should have a ball adjusting the composition and densities
in the mantle to suit both the Equatorial bulge and to give crustal
evolution and motion some teeth.
>
>
> > Differential rotation bands in the fluid-plastic mantle cause the Earth
> > to deviate from a perfect sphere because to imagine otherwise is to
> > make the Earth and exception.
>
> Hmmm...the Sun exhibits differential rotation bands to a far greater
> extent than the Earth. Why then is the Sun's equatorial bulge 373
> times SMALLER than the Earths? If differential rotation bands "cause"
> the equatorial bulge as you claim, why is the Sun's so much smaller
> than the Earth's?
>
Composition, densities,rate of rotation ect.
>
> > I could not give a damn if you understood
> > the principle or not,as far as I can see you intellectual midgets do
> > not know what to do when encountering common sense
> > descriptions,astronomical,terrestial and bottom line.
>
> Again with the childish name calling and ranting. Is your position
> so weak that you can't defend it otherwise?
>
I am especially proud of the differential rotation bands as a mechanism
for both bulge and crustal motion,at least partially responsible for
terrestial surface features.I never imply that there is a desperate
need for a mechanism but anyone who approaches the new mechanism will
find it almost impossible to return to convection cells/stationary
Earth.
It is not my fault that everyone is intent in shooting themselves in
the foot with the 'scientific method' when simple intution will
do.There are so many avenues open when people leave the empirical
mantras and this just happens to be one avenue among many that is
ignored.
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>Centrifugal forces,yeah,yeah yeah,this has been the story for hundreds
>of years and it will tell you why the Earth and all rotating celestial
>objects are spheres but it is useless to explain deviations from a
>perfect sphere.
Centrifugal forces do not explain why the planets are spheres (rotating
or not). They are spherical because of gravity. Centrifugal force
explains why rotating spheres are oblate.
>Perhaps you are the one who is special for it takes quite an effort to
>miss the shape of the Earth as a geological feature.Unless you live in
>a cave you would know that the Earth's fractured crust is composed of
>plates that are subject to rotational forces in the plastic-molten
>mantle.As all rotating celestial objects display both differential
>rotation and a bulge,it takes quite a special person to ignore it.
Rotating celestial objects that are solid, e.g. the Moon or Mars, do not
display differential rotation, just equatorial bulges.
Almost certainly, there is some differential rotation in the plastic
interior of the Earth (I don't know that anyone is denying this, as you
seem to suggest). The point is that convection currents in the mantle-
which have been observed experimentally- explain very nicely the
movement and evolution of tectonic plates. If that motion resulted from
differential rotation as you suggest, you would expect fault lines and
plate boundaries to lie preferentially on east-west axes, which they do
not. You would also expect plates on opposite sides of the equator to be
rotating, and in opposite directions. But the directions that plates
rotate isn't correlated with their hemisphere.
>It is not my fault that everyone is intent in shooting themselves in
>the foot with the 'scientific method' when simple intution will
>do.
Terrible problem there, what with rational methodology corrupting
intuition. <g>
I think my own intuition is pretty good; it has generally served me
well. But boy, on occasion it has really led me down the wrong path!
(And I doubt there is a scientist alive who wouldn't say the same.) If I
trusted only my intuition, and valued it higher than empirical evidence,
I'd sure have a strange world view by now. Hmmm... sound like anyone you
know?
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Skywise
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<Snipola>
Thank you for providing an excellent example of how
pesudoscientists rationalize their failures. I give
you a B+.
oriel36
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2005 11:30:45 -0800, "oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Centrifugal forces,yeah,yeah yeah,this has been the story for hundreds
> >of years and it will tell you why the Earth and all rotating celestial
> >objects are spheres but it is useless to explain deviations from a
> >perfect sphere.
>
> Centrifugal forces do not explain why the planets are spheres (rotating
> or not). They are spherical because of gravity. Centrifugal force
> explains why rotating spheres are oblate.
>
There was a time everyone would genuflect once you mentioned the word
'Newtonian gravity' but it turns out to be a poorly constructed
terrestial ballistics with plenty of linguistic tinsel to get it to
fit into planetary motion.It does not even work.
Now,as you are new to differential rotation bands in the mantle which
generate the geological departure of the Earth from a perfect sphere,I
suggest you stay in the background and watch a lovely new concept that
grafts geology and astronomy together.
You are like many others,unable to grasp that if you apply axial
rotational influences to planetary structure and especially the
Equatorial bulge, you are required them to crustal motion and evolution
also.It is fine pointing in the general direction of 'centrifugal
force' without qualifying anything.The observed motion of fluids in
motion demonstrate that differential rotation bands occur between
Equatorial and the polar axis,these great rivers straddle the Equator
of whatever rotating celestial object,that the Earth has a deviation
from a pefect sphere is therefore no surprise.
>
> >Perhaps you are the one who is special for it takes quite an effort to
> >miss the shape of the Earth as a geological feature.Unless you live in
> >a cave you would know that the Earth's fractured crust is composed of
> >plates that are subject to rotational forces in the plastic-molten
> >mantle.As all rotating celestial objects display both differential
> >rotation and a bulge,it takes quite a special person to ignore it.
>
> Rotating celestial objects that are solid, e.g. the Moon or Mars, do not
> display differential rotation, just equatorial bulges.
>
If you are too dumb to infer it below the Earth's crust then perhaps
you are better suited to remaining with convection cells/stationary
and your cataloguing celestial sphere.Boy !,you guys certainly are
incredible for what you can ignore.
Geologists are now accustomed to think of the planet as comprised of
component plates and these plates sit and move on a plastic-molten
mantle that is moving at 1000 miles per hour and diminishes to 0 at the
poles.The differential bands in a fluid ,depending on the density,will
seperate into bands hence the mechanism for the geological bulge
feature.While the motion of the bands is not as dramatic as it would
first appear,it would take an incredible effort to imagine that the
plastic-molten mantle moves as a single unit.
> Almost certainly, there is some differential rotation in the plastic
> interior of the Earth (I don't know that anyone is denying this, as you
> seem to suggest). The point is that convection currents in the mantle-
> which have been observed experimentally- explain very nicely the
> movement and evolution of tectonic plates.
This material is wonderful which is why I don't feel it necessary to
claim priority but I assure you that the largest geological feature is
the actual shape of the planet,if anyone acknowledges differential
rotation they are also acknowledging the mechanism which generates the
bulge.
You probably don't realise it but you are arguing against yourself when
you should be assimilating the concept and start to see that what
generates the bulge also moves the component plates.As differential
rotation bands exist then convection cells have to go, for like
'centrifugal force',it is a sloppy way based on a stationary Earth to
treat crustal motion.
If that motion resulted from
> differential rotation as you suggest, you would expect fault lines and
> plate boundaries to lie preferentially on east-west axes, which they do
> not. You would also expect plates on opposite sides of the equator to be
> rotating, and in opposite directions. But the directions that plates
> rotate isn't correlated with their hemisphere.
>
You poor bugger,you are trying to invoke coriolis when I have qualified
that many times that differential rotation bands are uni-directional.I
guess you were so busy trying to keep you convection cells/stationary
Earth that you forgot to look at the Sun's differential rotation bands.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
Like most other things,you throw guesses at something that requires
some intuitive control which is why the noble discipline of astronomy
no longer exists.
> >It is not my fault that everyone is intent in shooting themselves in
> >the foot with the 'scientific method' when simple intution will
> >do.
>
> Terrible problem there, what with rational methodology corrupting
> intuition. <g>
>
> I think my own intuition is pretty good; it has generally served me
> well. But boy, on occasion it has really led me down the wrong path!
> (And I doubt there is a scientist alive who wouldn't say the same.) If I
> trusted only my intuition, and valued it higher than empirical evidence,
> I'd sure have a strange world view by now. Hmmm... sound like anyone you
> know?
>
You associate 'intuition' with guesswork but the highest human
intuitive faculty cannot be diluted like that and especially in
matters of the investigation of natural phenomena.
The Copernican insight of a faster Earth taking an inner orbital
circuit and overtaking the slower planets on an outer heliocentric
orbital circuit as resolving retrogrades and simultaneously infering a
heliocentric axis is one such spectacular intuition that is impossible
to change once you 'see' it -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Differential rotation bands fall into the same intuitive category for
it is hard to imagine otherwise once you 'see' it.
"The difference between the mathematical and the intuitive mind.-- In
the one, the principles are tangible, but removed from ordinary use; so
that for want of habit it is difficult to turn one's mind in that
direction: but if one turns it there ever so little, one sees the
principles fully, and one must have a quite inaccurate mind who reasons
wrongly from principles so plain that it is almost impossible they
should escape notice"
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/pascal/pensees-a.html#SECTION%20I
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>There was a time everyone would genuflect once you mentioned the word
>'Newtonian gravity' but it turns out to be a poorly constructed
>terrestial ballistics with plenty of linguistic tinsel to get it to
>fit into planetary motion.It does not even work...
I've got it! You are using one of those computer programs that responds
pseudo-intelligently to input, analyzing syntax and vocabulary, and
producing a response that is tantalizingly close to making sense, but
simply can't be parsed into anything that actually does make sense.
Suddenly, the nature of all your posts is clear to me.
Brian Tung
> I've got it! You are using one of those computer programs that responds
> pseudo-intelligently to input, analyzing syntax and vocabulary, and
> producing a response that is tantalizingly close to making sense, but
> simply can't be parsed into anything that actually does make sense.
> Suddenly, the nature of all your posts is clear to me.
He has an opportunity to counterthrust by quining, but I'm sure he
won't take it.
oriel36
mantle to the Equatorial bulge and crustal evolution and motion through
drawing on actual observance of a celestial object in motion.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
As observed differential rotation bands exist then the sloppy
convection cells mechanism for crustal motion has to go .
You either get it or you do not and obviously I will have take great
pleasure in seeing you use the mechanism I recognise (and originated
with me) as the one that meshes astronomy with geology.
oriel36
There you go Brian,let's see you beat that for explaining the Earth's
Equatorial bulge and then I will tell yopu how to apply it to crustal
evolution and motion,up to an including Earthquakes,and the
development of terrestial surface features.
I would probably allow you to see how the relationship between axial
and orbital motions changes during mid-latitude glaciation or 'ice
ages' as they are known,but you adhere to a stupid notion that axial
and orbital motion can be combined off the Earth's axis using a
calendrical average -
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
No wonder you argue for a stationary Earth/convection cells with an
intellectual level of a slug (with no offense to the slug).
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/graphics/Fig32.gif
The poor guys,if they recognised that the Earth's shape is the largest
geological feature they would never have the problem of that sloppy
mechanism.Maybe some day they will be kind enough to adjust that view
using the uni-directional differential rotation bands.
You go back to spacegook or whatever you call it where you can do no
harm.
Phil Wheeler
> On 17 Nov 2005 09:39:07 -0800, "oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>There was a time everyone would genuflect once you mentioned the word
>>'Newtonian gravity' but it turns out to be a poorly constructed
>>terrestial ballistics with plenty of linguistic tinsel to get it to
>>fit into planetary motion.It does not even work...
>
>
> I've got it! You are using one of those computer programs that responds
> pseudo-intelligently to input, analyzing syntax and vocabulary, and
> producing a response that is tantalizingly close to making sense,
Well .. not all that close :)
oriel36
You have the observed differential rotation in front of you in contrast
to a vague 'centrifugal force' which will never explain the geological
deviation from a perfect sphere and this is all you can manage.
If you cannot make sense of how the mechanism for the bulge and crustal
motion are the same ,it is not my fault .No doubt people will
eventually adopt the principle by the contemporary process of empirical
osmosis rather than just discussing the thing openly as I have
intended.
You lot certainly stand out for the simple fact that you ignore that
the Earth's shape is the largest known geological feature insofar as
the component plates which make up the crust,follow the shape of the
mantle and the uni-directional rotation bands which flow around the
planet in great plastic molten rivers.
Again,very little I can do for people who cannot think for themselves
even if I disapprove of the scavengers who will get their hands on this.
DT
>I've got it! You are using one of those computer programs that responds
>pseudo-intelligently to input, analyzing syntax and vocabulary, and
>producing a response that is tantalizingly close to making sense, but
>simply can't be parsed into anything that actually does make sense.
>Suddenly, the nature of all your posts is clear to me.
This has (mildly) interested me for a while, Gerald Kelleher is the name
of a professor (possibly at Leeds Univ.) who is/was deeply involved in
A.I. theory.
Perhaps this is his software experiment that has developed an
obsessive-compulsive disorder.
I particularly like the attention to detail shown by including typos.
;-)
Denis
--
DT
change nospam: n o s p a m
v a l l e ys
Phil Wheeler
Martin Brown
> To PHIL
[snip another load of garbage and fed to the Shannonizer]
Output:
To PHIL You
as edited by
The Shannonizer Assault Team
To PHIL You lot certainly stand out for the Earth's shape of empirical
osmosis rather than just discussing the contemporary process of the
uni-directional rotation in contrast to a perfect sphere and crustal
motion are the mechanism for people will eventually adopt the planet in
contrast to a perfect sphere and the Earth's shape of how the shape is
the simple fact that you in contrast to a perfect sphere and the
observed differential rotation in front of how the uni-directional
rotation bands which flow around the contemporary process of the shape
of the bulge and this is the uni-directional rotation in contrast to a
vague centrifugal force which make sense of you cannot make up the
principle by the component plates which will never explain the
uni-directional rotation bands which make up the crust,follow the shape
of empirical osmosis rather than just discussing the mechanism for the
mantle and crustal motion are the uni-directional rotation in front of
how the same ,it is all you ignore that you in great plastic molten rivers.
Return to Shannonizer Home Page http://www.nightgarden.com/shannon.htm
The oriel36 text appears virtually invariant under this transformation.
Strongly suggests a bot or a net-kook. Probably the latter.
Regards,
Martin Brown
oriel36
Here you go Martin,take a good look at the differential rotation bands
which generate a deviation from a perfect sphere.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
The Earth's crust whiuch is made up of component plates fits the
profile of the plastic-molten mantle hence the Equatorial bulge and the
correct mechanism for crustal motion.
I think you guys are plain cute with your convections cells and your
centrifugal force ,I really do !.There may be intelligent people who
can see the value of a meshing of astronomy with geology but not among
any of you.
Martin Brown
> To Martin
>
> Here you go Martin,take a good look at the differential rotation bands
> which generate a deviation from a perfect sphere.
>
> http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
You clearly do not have a clue. The sun rotates rather slowly and is a
very close approximation to a perfect sphere in shape. But it does not
rotate as a solid body (hardly surprising as it is a hot optically dense
plasma).
Solar oblateness was measured accurately by SOHO as ~8ppm
http://www.noao.edu/noao/noaonews/dec97/node2.html
By comparison Jupiter and Saturn which rotates much faster than the
Earth are visibly oblate even to casual inspection.
Regards,
Martin Brown
oriel36
Equatorial bulge.
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Srotfram1.htm
I hope you detest differential rotation bands in the mantle as
generating the Earth's deviation from a perfect sphere and the
mechanism for crustal evolution and motion .The crust fits the profile
of the rotating mantle hence it is easy to graft in tectonic data
without too much diificulty.
I am counting that you are so intellectually poor that you will ignore
the largest known geological feature - the shape of the planet and that
you with remain with your stationaryEarth/convection cells mechanism
for crustal motion and half baked 'centrifugal force' explanations for
the bulge.Geologists will do far better without you.
oriel36
The Earth's mantle does not rotate as a solid unit hence the deviation
from a perfect sphere.By adopting differential rotation bands in the
molten-plastic mantle,a number of different consequences emerge that
are enjoyable to work with or just simply enjoyable.
The largest known geological feature bevomes the shape of the
Earth,astronomy and geology mesh insofar as the mechanism for the
planetary geometric profile also conditions the movement of individual
plates and this is the major breakthrough.
There is really no dillemma for the broad outlines of the 'differential
rotation' mechanism can be grafted into existing tectonic motion
without undue fuss by replacing the 'convection cells/stationary
Earth' concept.
It may be ironic that the reason nobody cares to discuss the
association betweeen shape and the motion of component plates is that
I propose it ,if that were the case I will withdraw to facilitate this
exciting approach that already exists in part through observations
drawn from rotating celestial objects such as the Sun and the other
planets.The simple leap in determining that the mechanism for the
Earth's shape also conditions crustal motion and subsequently
Earthquakes and volcanoes makes it quite relevent in today's world .
Skywise
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
<Snipola>
> The Earth's mantle does not rotate as a solid unit hence the deviation
> from a perfect sphere.
Correlation != causation.
<Snipola of rest>
oriel36
Skywise wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1132397090.931275.172330
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> <Snipola>
> > The Earth's mantle does not rotate as a solid unit hence the deviation
> > from a perfect sphere.
>
> Correlation != causation.
>
> <Snipola of rest>
>
> Brian
> --
where no thinking is required.
Differential rotation bands in the mantle infered directly from other
rotating celestial objects do the job of profiling the Earth's Earth's
crust to a deviation from a perfect sphere and simultaneously provide
the mechanism for crustal motion.
I get to explain the largest known geological feature -the shape of the
planet,mesh astronomy with geology,provide a more accurate mechanism
for crustal evolution and motion which subsequently generates events
such as volcanoes and Earthquakes.
You and your colleagues make an exception of the Earth by ignoring the
rotational association between bulge and differential rotation bands
never mind making the further association to plate tectonics .It is
some feat to ignore the largest geological feature -the shape of the
planet but such is the lousy intellectual and intuitive standard that
exists.
Skywise
news:1132480674....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> Skywise wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:1132397090.931275.172330 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> <Snipola>
>> > The Earth's mantle does not rotate as a solid unit hence the
>> > deviation from a perfect sphere.
>>
>> Correlation != causation.
>>
>> <Snipola of rest>
>>
>> Brian
>> --
> The best thing yiou can do is go back to your harmless cataloguing
> where no thinking is required.
>
> Differential rotation bands in the mantle infered directly from other
> rotating celestial objects do the job of profiling the Earth's Earth's
> crust to a deviation from a perfect sphere and simultaneously provide
> the mechanism for crustal motion.
The Sun spins faster and has more dramatic 'differential rotation
bands' than the Earth. Yet its equatorial bulge is 327 times
less than the Earth's.
<Snipola of reast>
Brian
--
oriel36
The densities of the plastic-molten mantle can be adjusted to suit the
profile of the Earth's deviation from a perfect sphere and subsequently
the component plates that sit on top of this rotating mantle.The
observation of differential rotation on the Sun provides the basic
structure of a rotating celestial object,not need to point out the
difference between the solar bulge of the Sun and Earth as I suspect
that most intelligent people would already know that their repective
sizes, constituents and rotations are different but at least you made
the important leap which is half the story.The other half is replacing
cionvection cells with differential rotation bands in the Earth's
mantle,then you will know the real value of what is before you.
Again,you are just not up to appreciating the possibilities of getting
the shape of the plannets recognised as a geological feature and
subsequently the attractive proposition that the mechanism for the
profile of the planet is also the mechanism for crustal motion.
I am particularly fond of that insight but it can get rapidly complex
beyond the original outlines.This is why there is no desperate need to
find a mechanism for crustal motion and I enjoy geological
insights,apart from convection cells,without having to foist this new
way of thinking on anyone.
Skywise
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> To Skywise
>
> The densities of the plastic-molten mantle can be adjusted to suit the
> profile of the Earth's deviation from a perfect sphere and subsequently
> the component plates that sit on top of this rotating mantle.The
<Snipola>
What is your empirical evidence that shows that the crustal motions
are due to differential rotation bands rather than convection cells?
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?
Do you like censorship and not getting support help? Switch to Supernews!
Doink
I thought you did a great job. It made perfect sense and it really helped
me explain some concepts to my group. The time you spent answering is much
appreciated...
I remembered something from my younger days---when I was a kid, a buddy of
mine and I worked for a trucking company. We'd ride with the driver to the
stop and then it was our job to unload the truck. A large semi with cases of
eggs can take a while to unload and reload---anyway, sometimes the truck
would be empty and we'd ride in the trailor----not safe, old days---but
riding in an big empty semi is a kick. Ok, here's the point: sometimes we'd
play catch with a golf ball or "super ball" (remember those?) So, when
throwing the ball at say 40 mph from the front to the rear of the trailor
(going 65mph) what speed is the ball traveling? What about throwing it from
the back to the front? Would we have to throw it 66 mph to reach the front?
Obviously, from inside the semi's trailor we had no sensation of movement
and the ball went between us as it would from the ground....but relative to
a passing car, if we had been in glass trailor, the ball would have exceeded
65 mph when thrown at only 40 mph when going from rear to front. We could
throw easily beyond a car along side going the 65 mph.
Relative....
Doink
"Brian Tung" <br...@isi.edu> wrote in message
news:dl9mfu$lhi$1...@praesepe.isi.edu...
> Martin Brown wrote:
>> This is what I found so scary about the OPs question. It isn't really
>> about relativity at all but about basic classical kinetic energy.
>
> Tell me about it. I set out to write a reasonably short (well, four
> or five paragraphs, really) bit about why energy has the units it does,
> and I just couldn't close the explanation without all that extra text.
>
> (Really.)
Brian Tung
> I remembered something from my younger days---when I was a kid, a buddy of
> mine and I worked for a trucking company. We'd ride with the driver to the
> stop and then it was our job to unload the truck. A large semi with cases of
> eggs can take a while to unload and reload---anyway, sometimes the truck
> would be empty and we'd ride in the trailor----not safe, old days---but
> riding in an big empty semi is a kick. Ok, here's the point: sometimes we'd
> play catch with a golf ball or "super ball" (remember those?) So, when
> throwing the ball at say 40 mph from the front to the rear of the trailor
> (going 65mph) what speed is the ball traveling? What about throwing it from
> the back to the front? Would we have to throw it 66 mph to reach the front?
When you throw the ball at 40 mph from front to back in a truck moving
65 mph, the ball is moving at 40 mph rearward, relative to the truck.
But relative to the outside ground, it is moving at 65-40 = 25 mph
*forward*. If you were to throw the ball back to front, it would move
at 65+40 = 105 mph.
The only way that the truck's speed would measurably affect the ball,
assuming that the truck is moving at a constant speed, without turning,
is if there is some air resistance (say, the trailer is vented in some
way). Otherwise, your intuition is right: It really is as though the
truck were stationary.
All this is good old Galilean relativity. He was the one who suggested
that if one dropped a heavy weight (in order to minimize the effects of
air resistance) from the crow's nest on a moving ship, the weight would
land directly below the crow's nest, rather than trailing behind it as
many others thought. They believed that the moving ship would leave the
falling weight behind. Galileo showed that as you held the weight before
dropping it, it acquired the forward motion of the ship, and when you
dropped it, it retained that forward motion, in addition to gaining
downward speed. This grew into Newton's notion of inertia.
Now, the unfortunate thing is that Galilean relativity, as simple as it
is, is just the teensiest bit wrong. You can't possibly tell when
throwing a ball at 40 mph in a 65 mph truck, but the speeds don't quite
add the way you're used to. As Einstein discovered, whenever you think
you should add two speeds, the result you get is a bit less. As I say,
the difference is tiny at everyday speeds: Instead of moving at 105 mph,
the forward thrown ball moves at 105 mph minus about 10 trillionths of
a mile per hour. Big deal!
But it does become a big deal when moving at appreciable fractions of
the speed of light--what we call relativistic speeds. If the truck were
moving at, say, three-fourths the speed of light, and you throw the ball
at half the speed of light, then instead of the ball moving at
one-and-one-fourth the speed of light (which would violate the special
theory of relativity), the ball moves at ten-elevenths the speed of
light.
Totally nuts is most people's first impression. But entirely verifiable
by experiment.
Martin Brown
> riding in an big empty semi is a kick. Ok, here's the point: sometimes we'd
> play catch with a golf ball or "super ball" (remember those?) So, when
> throwing the ball at say 40 mph from the front to the rear of the trailor
> (going 65mph) what speed is the ball traveling? What about throwing it from
> the back to the front? Would we have to throw it 66 mph to reach the front?
Inside the trailer it is moving at the speed you are able to throw the
ball realtive to the truck walls. But a stationary observer on the
roadside would be much more annoyed if you hit him with a ball thrown
forwards at 100mph from the truck than thrown backwards out the back and
doing a mere 25mph.
> Obviously, from inside the semi's trailor we had no sensation of movement
> and the ball went between us as it would from the ground....but relative to
> a passing car, if we had been in glass trailor, the ball would have exceeded
> 65 mph when thrown at only 40 mph when going from rear to front. We could
> throw easily beyond a car along side going the 65 mph.
>
> Relative....
This is simple Galilean relativity. It generalises to Einsteins
relativity by requiring that the laws of physics are the same for all
observers in any inertial frame (one moving at constant velocity).
Incidentally when the truck went around a corner (rare in the US I know)
you would not be in an inertial frame and the balls path would appear
curved to you. You would also feel apparent sideways forces.
Various fairground rides offer the opportunity to experience some
non-interial reference frames.
Regards,
Martin Brown
oriel36
There is this thing called common sense,it is rarely seen nowadays and
insofar as the dynamics of any celestial rotating fluid or gas displays
both differential rotation and an Equatorial bulge,it is incredibly
easy,except for empiricists, to aplly this differential rotation to the
Earth's mantle.
As crustal motion and the shape of the Earth are bound together
geologically it is no great leap to substitute the same mechanism for
the Earth's shape for the sloppy convection cells/stationary Earth
mechanism.
If you need evidence beyond the observed uni-directional rotational
bands on the Sun perhaps you would be better dropping the subject and
stick with your celestial imaging.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
It is a nice addition to geology and astronomy,even if I say so myself.
Skywise
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Tautology.
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!
oriel36
The remarkable differential rotation going on beneath your feet that
generates the geolgical shape of the Earth and crustal evolution and
motion is just one of those things that people will love,it does not
require much effort to understand even if I have to present it to an
audience whoes only response is to blurt out single words or grunt
nonsense.
I am proud of my astronomical heritage that owes nothing to cataloguers
and their system which provides calendrically based observations and it
just happens that differential rotation bands in the mantle is a
consequence of observing celestial spheres in motion and their
deviation from a perfect sphere.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/unanswered.html
The only comparison I can make with 'convection cells' is that it would
be like going back to discuss epicycles when the resolution for
retrogrades was resolved centuries ago ( however in comparison with
epicycles Newtonian quasi-geocentricity is far worse) but all I can do
is show people the image of the rotating Sun and the uni-directional
rotation bands as a guide to what is going on in the mantle.
What do you do with this jewel,you blurt out 'tautology '.
Skywise
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<Snipola>
> What do you do with this jewel,you blurt out 'tautology '.
It's obvious you don't even understand the meaning of the word,
which is no surprise.
oriel36
Do you know how easy this material is for a real astronomer ?.
Look at the behavior of a rotating celestial object,determine that
beneath the thin fractured crustal plates that profile the Earth's
shape and sit on the mantle and discern a differential between
Equatorial and polar regions.
Then make the leap that the Earth's shape is conditioned by
uni-directional rotational bands and subsequently it is this mechanism
that effects the component plates.
Here is the quicker version of what is going on in the mantle -
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
I assure you that I am not trying to convince you,the gormless always
fancied themselves as having no faith but it turns out they do.As a
Christian I know too well what happens when people propose themselves
bigger than the topic they are investigating and basically the
inability to approach observable nature for instruction leads to all
sorts of conceptual monsters,convection cells being one of them.
You see,you are not even getting the benefit of being insulted for you
insult yourselves very nicely.
Skywise
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<Snipola>
Nevermind....I get more intelligent conversation from a brick wall.
oriel36
> On 16 Nov 2005 11:30:45 -0800, "oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Centrifugal forces,yeah,yeah yeah,this has been the story for hundreds
> >of years and it will tell you why the Earth and all rotating celestial
> >objects are spheres but it is useless to explain deviations from a
> >perfect sphere.
>
> Centrifugal forces do not explain why the planets are spheres (rotating
> or not). They are spherical because of gravity. Centrifugal force
> explains why rotating spheres are oblate.
>
>
> >Perhaps you are the one who is special for it takes quite an effort to
> >miss the shape of the Earth as a geological feature.Unless you live in
> >a cave you would know that the Earth's fractured crust is composed of
> >plates that are subject to rotational forces in the plastic-molten
> >mantle.As all rotating celestial objects display both differential
> >rotation and a bulge,it takes quite a special person to ignore it.
>
> Rotating celestial objects that are solid, e.g. the Moon or Mars, do not
> display differential rotation, just equatorial bulges.
>
> Almost certainly, there is some differential rotation in the plastic
> interior of the Earth (I don't know that anyone is denying this, as you
> seem to suggest). The point is that convection currents in the mantle-
> which have been observed experimentally- explain very nicely the
> movement and evolution of tectonic plates. If that motion resulted from
> differential rotation as you suggest, you would expect fault lines and
> plate boundaries to lie preferentially on east-west axes, which they do
> not. You would also expect plates on opposite sides of the equator to be
> rotating, and in opposite directions. But the directions that plates
> rotate isn't correlated with their hemisphere.
>
> >It is not my fault that everyone is intent in shooting themselves in
> >the foot with the 'scientific method' when simple intution will
> >do.
>
> Terrible problem there, what with rational methodology corrupting
> intuition. <g>
>
> I think my own intuition is pretty good; it has generally served me
> well. But boy, on occasion it has really led me down the wrong path!
> (And I doubt there is a scientist alive who wouldn't say the same.) If I
> trusted only my intuition, and valued it higher than empirical evidence,
> I'd sure have a strange world view by now. Hmmm... sound like anyone you
> know?
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
Here is what the Wikipedia page on Plate tectonics looked like back in 2005 when I was demonstrating how to draw from observations of rotating celestial objects with exposed fluid compositions and apply the lessons to the Earth rotating fluid interior and from there to clues left on the surface crust in terms of crustal evolution and motion. -
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plate_tectonics&oldid=29688503
Instead of developing the 100% observational certainty that a rotating celestial fluid object does not rotate as a single unit with an even rotational gradient between equator and poles they threw every assertion they could find at rotation and ignored the neat scheme which binds the spherical deviation of the planet with evolutionary geology using a common mechanism.So this is how the article looks like today with 'rotation' -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
Back in 2005 you were referring to differential rotation between cores which amounts to a misinterpretation of data as the productive view of differential rotation is the uneven rotational gradient between equator and poles which generates the global feature of the Mid Atlantic Ridge and destroys crust at the other side of the boundary as new oceanic crust forces the old crust down into the rotating fluid interior of the planet and its erosion effect.
palsing
> Here is what the Wikipedia page on Plate tectonics looked like back in 2005 when I was demonstrating how to draw from observations of rotating celestial objects with exposed fluid compositions and apply the lessons to the Earth rotating fluid interior and from there to clues left on the surface crust in terms of crustal evolution and motion. -
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plate_tectonics&oldid=29688503
>
>
>
> Instead of developing the 100% observational certainty that a rotating celestial fluid object does not rotate as a single unit with an even rotational gradient between equator and poles they threw every assertion they could find at rotation and ignored the neat scheme which binds the spherical deviation of the planet with evolutionary geology using a common mechanism.So this is how the article looks like today with 'rotation' -
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
>
>
>
> Back in 2005 you were referring to differential rotation between cores which amounts to a misinterpretation of data as the productive view of differential rotation is the uneven rotational gradient between equator and poles which generates the global feature of the Mid Atlantic Ridge and destroys crust at the other side of the boundary as new oceanic crust forces the old crust down into the rotating fluid interior of the planet and its erosion effect.
Why did you even bother to write this?
oriel36
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plate_tectonics&oldid=29688503
About ten years later and because empiricists like Peterson here are not good enough to comprehend the neat reasoning that connects planetary shape and evolutionary geology together using already observed differential rotation in all rotating celestial objects with exposed viscous compositions,they threw every assertion they could find at rotation so the Wiki article looks like this now with 'rotation' added -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
So,differential rotation across latitudes which first appeared here in respect to the 26 mile spherical deviation of our planet across the same latitudes and the mechanism for crustal evolution and motion but is still not being discussed properly.
palsing
oriel36
> That page STILL does not contain the word 'differential' and the word 'gradient' only appears once (in reference to the atmosphere), and this is because there is no differential rotation across latitudes, and you cannot show that it exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fracturezone.svg
http://www.mantleplumes.org/images/TristanFig1_600.gif
The lag/advance mechanism of differential rotation creating a symmetrical generation of crust either side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge is one such invaluable clue however the really neat part is the 26 mile spherical deviation which meshes with this internal dynamical feature.
The recent Wiki addition is the sound of the usual incompetence,people not comfortable with the insight as it was originally proposed a decade ago in outlines or in a draft that looks at planetary shape and plate tectonics using a common mechanism.
oriel36
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plate_tectonics&oldid=29688503
The idea of a transition phase in stellar evolution is a lot slower coming but there is a possibility that when you look out at our parent star you may be looking at the factory for the elements in your body and all other visible things with the transition event being a supernova.
The thing about empiricists is that they botch clear reasoning even if that reasoning is in outlines and only speculative in nature. I am not happy to see them lunge at rotation and plate tectonics without taking into account a normal observation in watching the behavior of rotating viscous compositions so although you are keen to speculate on these exoplanets,when our close by planetary neighbors offer up real information you suddenly don't know what I am saying to this forum.
Gerald Kelleher
> On 16 Nov 2005 11:30:45 -0800, "oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Perhaps you are the one who is special for it takes quite an effort to
> >miss the shape of the Earth as a geological feature.Unless you live in
> >a cave you would know that the Earth's fractured crust is composed of
> >plates that are subject to rotational forces in the plastic-molten
> >mantle.As all rotating celestial objects display both differential
> >rotation and a bulge,it takes quite a special person to ignore it.
>
> Rotating celestial objects that are solid, e.g. the Moon or Mars, do not
> display differential rotation, just equatorial bulges.
>
> Almost certainly, there is some differential rotation in the plastic
> interior of the Earth (I don't know that anyone is denying this, as you
> seem to suggest). The point is that convection currents in the mantle-
> which have been observed experimentally- explain very nicely the
> movement and evolution of tectonic plates. If that motion resulted from
> differential rotation as you suggest, you would expect fault lines and
> plate boundaries to lie preferentially on east-west axes, which they do
> not. You would also expect plates on opposite sides of the equator to be
> rotating, and in opposite directions. But the directions that plates
> rotate isn't correlated with their hemisphere.
>
>
To be fair, they have since tried to insert a rotational mechanism for plate tectonics but the faculties which are so dormant in empirical minds ,like yours, they can handle basic associations even when they unavoidable.
Gerald Kelleher
I understand that most would be cheerleaders for articles that surface every now again but these things were new and remain that way without any significant advancement. I followed the rise of rotational influences on plate tectonics and it is a mess despite the appearance that some progress is being made but it will always come back to the differential rotation across latitudes as the mechanism behind so much evolution of the surface crust.
My goodness, how things change over the years while some other things remain the same. It wasn't a matter of getting it right but that one differential rotation mechanism serves two purposes in linking geological evolution with planetary shape so it makes no sense to exempt our home planet from principles that are observed on all rotating celestial objects with fluid compositions.
Gerald Kelleher
Twenty years before the idea of chatbots gained wider attention, I was called one. Things have changed because the internet has changed with more visual narratives available and it is easier than ever to research the behaviour of rotating celestial objects with viscous compositions and especially differential rotation across latitudes in terms of plate tectonics by drawing on planetary comparisons-
https://phys.libretexts.org/Courses/HACC_Central_Pennsylvania's_Community_College/Astronomy_103%3A_Introduction_to_Planetary_Astronomy/11%3A_The_Jovian_Planets/11.01%3A_Jupiter's_Atmosphere
In 2005, there was no consideration of a rotational mechanism-
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plate_tectonics&oldid=27495815
Within a few years, they created a miserable mess by introducing rotation without following the proper principles.
So, I regret that time when I was angry, but nowadays it is different as I have learned to live, albeit uncomfortably, with those who are mean-spirited and dull when there is so much to explore.
Quadibloc
> OK, Energy = Mass X Speed of Light Sq.
> I understand the principle, that this translates to a BIG number and thus a
> lot of energy is contained in matter. Yes, matter is essentially frozen
> energy. Stipulated.
> By I'm thrown by the SPEED of light thing. If something has a mass of 10
> grams and I multiply it by 386,000 mph it doesn't make sense. Is there a
> scientific conversion from speed to some other unit????? How do you
> multiply mass times speed? Or is it just representational? Can the
> explanation be simplified?
E = mc^2 is indeed consistent from the point of view of the use of units.
One unit of energy is the foot pound. That is the amount of energy you
use to lift an object that weighs a pound by a foot.
However, that is not a unit of energy if you consider the pound to be a
unit of mass. The pound is being lifted against the force of gravity, which
is implied - unless you instead use the pound as a unit of force.
So in the metric system, the basic unit of energy, the Watt, is equal to
one Newton - metre. The work required to move something one metre,
against an opposing force of one Newton.
And what other units can be used to express a Newton?
A Newton is the force which, when acting on a mass of one kilogram
(not a gram, as the SI is basically a slight modification of the MKS
system of units, where the metre, the kilogram, and the second are
fundamental; the other old metric system was CGS, where the
centimetre, the gram, and the second were fundamental; in that system,
the unit of force is the dyne, and 100,000 dynes make a Newton) will
cause its motion to accelerate at the constant rate of one metre per
second... per second. So after a second, its velocity increases by
one metre per second.
So one Newton is one kilogram times one metre divided by one second
squared. Therefore, one Watt, which is a Newton-metre, is one kilogram
times one metre squared divided by one second squared.
Therefore, energy is measured in units that are equivalent to mass
times velocity (one metre divided by one second) squared. E = mc^2,
therfore, is dimensionally correct.
John Savard