Florian wrote:

You missed the true question: where does the energy come from?

the same damned place your magic energy comes from.... [...]

"Aidan Karley" <name1_na...@email.provider.invalid> wrote in message

news:VA.0000152d.4b6a97e7@email.provider.invalid...

In article <mythusmage-82640F.20415323022...@news.isp.giganews.com>, Alan
Kellogg wrote:
You did read the full comment, right? Let us review:

Let me see if I have this straight. Earth has expanded in size, and
thus
in mass.

      Yes I did.
      Where did the extra mass come from?

I don't think the earth has increased (or decreased) mass or size very much
in the last few billion years.

Why do you think it has?

On 25 fév, 16:15, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au
wrote:
"Aidan Karley" <name1_na...@email.provider.invalid> wrote in message

news:VA.0000152d.4b6a97e7@email.provider.invalid...

In article <mythusmage-82640F.20415323022...@news.isp.giganews.com>, Alan
Kellogg wrote:
You did read the full comment, right? Let us review:
Let me see if I have this straight. Earth has expanded in size, and
thus
in mass.
Yes I did.
Where did the extra mass come from?
I don't think the earth has increased (or decreased) mass or size very much
in the last few billion years.

Why do you think it has?

What you think or not is of no bearing on the issue...

sir.jpturcaud@neuf.fr wrote:
On 25 fév, 16:15, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au
wrote:
"Aidan Karley" <name1_na...@email.provider.invalid> wrote in message

news:VA.0000152d.4b6a97e7@email.provider.invalid...

In article <mythusmage-82640F.20415323022...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
Alan
Kellogg wrote:
You did read the full comment, right? Let us review:
Let me see if I have this straight. Earth has expanded in size, and
thus
in mass.
Yes I did.
Where did the extra mass come from?
I don't think the earth has increased (or decreased) mass or size very
much
in the last few billion years.

Ummm. I remember reading somewhere that several tonnes of meteorites fall
on this planet every day. Over millions of years, wouldn't that be a
considerable mass?

"argusy" <argusy@slmember.on.net> wrote in message
news:13t4d5qsb3qbq24@corp.supernews.com...
sir.jpturcaud@neuf.fr wrote:
On 25 fév, 16:15, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au
wrote:
"Aidan Karley" <name1_na...@email.provider.invalid> wrote in message

news:VA.0000152d.4b6a97e7@email.provider.invalid...

In article <mythusmage-82640F.20415323022...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
Alan
Kellogg wrote:
You did read the full comment, right? Let us review:
Let me see if I have this straight. Earth has expanded in size, and
thus
in mass.
Yes I did.
Where did the extra mass come from?
I don't think the earth has increased (or decreased) mass or size very
much
in the last few billion years.
Ummm. I remember reading somewhere that several tonnes of meteorites fall
on this planet every day. Over millions of years, wouldn't that be a
considerable mass?

Depends what you mean by considerable. Compared to the mass of Earth, it's
bugger all.


you're right. I just did dome figgering. Even if 100 tonnes fell per day, in one

Ummm. I remember reading somewhere that several tonnes of meteorites fall on
this planet every day. Over millions of years, wouldn't that be a considerable mass?

Using a nice round number of 10 tonnes/day

In article <13t4d5qsb3qbq24@corp.supernews.com>, Argusy wrote:
Ummm. I remember reading somewhere that several tonnes of meteorites fall
on
this planet every day. Over millions of years, wouldn't that be a
considerable mass?

Using a nice round number of 10 tonnes/day
= 10,000 kg / day (just to keep everything in proper units).
= 3,652,800 kg/year (just over 365 and a quarter days/year, varies
slightly
over the next period)
= 730,560,000,000,000 kg over the last 200 million years (one of the
EE people
has a thing about his claimed expansion starting in the Triassic ; again,
just a round
number)
= 292,224,000,000 m^3 at 2500kg/m^3
This volume would account for a spherical shell on the surface of the
Earth
which is ... I make it 0.00057m thick. Unless I've slipped a digit somewhere.
Quick check, a 1m thick shell on the nominal Earth diameter will have
a volume
of 510,064,551,970,139 m^3. Yes, around 200 times more than meteoric
accretion. I have
a feeling I got a figure of about a half-mm the last time I did this
calculation.

In article <13t4d5qsb3qb...@corp.supernews.com>, Argusy wrote:
Ummm. I remember reading somewhere that several tonnes of meteorites fall on
this planet every day. Over millions of years, wouldn't that be a considerable mass?

       Using a nice round number of 10 tonnes/day
       = 10,000 kg / day (just to keep everything in proper units).
       = 3,652,800 kg/year (just over 365 and a quarter days/year, varies slightly
over the next period)
       = 730,560,000,000,000 kg over the last 200 million years (one of the EE people
has a thing about his claimed expansion starting in the Triassic ; again, just a round
number)
       = 292,224,000,000 m^3 at 2500kg/m^3
       This volume would account for a spherical shell on the surface of the Earth
which is ... I make it 0.00057m thick. Unless I've slipped a digit somewhere.
       Quick check, a 1m thick shell on the nominal Earth diameter will have a volume
of 510,064,551,970,139 m^3. Yes, around 200 times more than meteoric accretion. I have
a feeling I got a figure of about a half-mm the last time I did this calculation.
--
Aidan Karley, FGS,
Aberdeen, Scotlandacula

In article <13t4d5qsb3qb...@corp.supernews.com>, Argusy wrote:
Ummm. I remember reading somewhere that several tonnes of meteorites fall on
this planet every day. Over millions of years, wouldn't that be a considerable mass?

       Using a nice round number of 10 tonnes/day
       = 10,000 kg / day (just to keep everything in proper units).
       = 3,652,800 kg/year (just over 365 and a quarter days/year, varies slightly
over the next period)
       = 730,560,000,000,000 kg over the last 200 million years (one of the EE people
has a thing about his claimed expansion starting in the Triassic ; again, just a round
number)
       = 292,224,000,000 m^3 at 2500kg/m^3
       This volume would account for a spherical shell on the surface of the Earth
which is ... I make it 0.00057m thick. Unless I've slipped a digit somewhere.
       Quick check, a 1m thick shell on the nominal Earth diameter will have a volume
of 510,064,551,970,139 m^3. Yes, around 200 times more than meteoric accretion. I have
a feeling I got a figure of about a half-mm the last time I did this calculation.
--
Aidan Karley, FGS,
Aberdeen, Scotland

In article
11af8f44-ea4b-47dd-940c-245c4f2ed...@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,





 oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 9, 2:44 am, Aidan Karley <name1_na...@email.provider.invalid
wrote:
In article <13t4d5qsb3qb...@corp.supernews.com>, Argusy wrote:
Ummm. I remember reading somewhere that several tonnes of meteorites fall
on
this planet every day. Over millions of years, wouldn't that be a
considerable mass?

       Using a nice round number of 10 tonnes/day
       = 10,000 kg / day (just to keep everything in proper units).
       = 3,652,800 kg/year (just over 365 and a quarter days/year, varies
slightly
over the next period)
       = 730,560,000,000,000 kg over the last 200 million years (one of the
EE people
has a thing about his claimed expansion starting in the Triassic ; again,
just a round
number)
       = 292,224,000,000 m^3 at 2500kg/m^3
       This volume would account for a spherical shell on the surface of
the Earth
which is ... I make it 0.00057m thick. Unless I've slipped a digit
somewhere.
       Quick check, a 1m thick shell on the nominal Earth diameter will
have a volume
of 510,064,551,970,139 m^3. Yes, around 200 times more than meteoric
accretion. I have
a feeling I got a figure of about a half-mm the last time I did this
calculation.
--
Aidan Karley, FGS,
Aberdeen, Scotland

Wow ! look at all the weight for 1 metre of crust

Imagine moving thousands of times more weight than that  by a
mechanism
of  thermal convection. Now that you have your calculator out, how
much heat do you need to rise 1 metre of composition up 1 metre via
thermal convection  and then apply it to the internal dynamics of the
Earth.

I am sorry that I will not be around for the answer,plate tectonics
remains a great idea but is lost to 'convection cell'  advocates.and
there is nobody around to deal with the matter,not by yelling for
rotational dynamics but acknowledging that the thermally driven cells
are just too absurd and counter-productive.

Doubt it will happen though,people who are gungho about convection
cells when a more reasonable mechanism is on offer are unlikely to
deal in anything but trivia as your postings always illustrate.

Convection cells can explain the movement in a simple and
straightforward way.
--

Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 9, 2:44 am, Aidan Karley <name1_na...@email.provider.invalid
wrote:
In article <13t4d5qsb3qb...@corp.supernews.com>, Argusy wrote:
Ummm. I remember reading somewhere that several tonnes of meteorites fall
on
this planet every day. Over millions of years, wouldn't that be a
considerable mass?

       Using a nice round number of 10 tonnes/day
       = 10,000 kg / day (just to keep everything in proper units).
       = 3,652,800 kg/year (just over 365 and a quarter days/year, varies
slightly
over the next period)
       = 730,560,000,000,000 kg over the last 200 million years (one of the
EE people
has a thing about his claimed expansion starting in the Triassic ; again,
just a round
number)
       = 292,224,000,000 m^3 at 2500kg/m^3
       This volume would account for a spherical shell on the surface of
the Earth
which is ... I make it 0.00057m thick. Unless I've slipped a digit
somewhere.
       Quick check, a 1m thick shell on the nominal Earth diameter will
have a volume
of 510,064,551,970,139 m^3. Yes, around 200 times more than meteoric
accretion. I have
a feeling I got a figure of about a half-mm the last time I did this
calculation.
--
Aidan Karley, FGS,
Aberdeen, Scotland

Wow ! look at all the weight for 1 metre of crust

Imagine moving thousands of times more weight than that by a
mechanism
of thermal convection. Now that you have your calculator out, how
much heat do you need to rise 1 metre of composition up 1 metre via
thermal convection and then apply it to the internal dynamics of the
Earth.


I am sorry that I will not be around for the answer,plate tectonics
remains a great idea but is lost to 'convection cell' advocates.and
there is nobody around to deal with the matter,not by yelling for
rotational dynamics but acknowledging that the thermally driven cells
are just too absurd and counter-productive.


Doubt it will happen though,people who are gungho about convection
cells when a more reasonable mechanism is on offer are unlikely to
deal in anything but trivia as your postings always illustrate.

I always said you are welcome to a geostationary convection cell
notion to suit your intelligence and delighted that you are so open
about it,it spares me having to descend to a level which has'nt
existed since the 15th century where they built notions around a
stationary Earth notwitstanding that I would have to descend to a
subhuman state where you exist with your timekeeping level ,the fact
being that no human society in antiquity ever understood the noon
cycles to be 24 hours exactly -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9re...

I do think a person suffers from a genuine illness if they cannot
interpret actual images of the Earth overtaking the planets as the
only way to affirm our and their motion around the central  Sun but
even here it appears that the illness is far more entrenched than I
could have imagined,a real human illness that cannot find  fault with
the false view of Newton that completely destroys the main Western
astronomical achievement of Copernicus known to Kepler and Galileo .

It is refreshing seeing somebody so open about convection cells and
good for you,keep up the good work in cleaning up grammar and notation
you hear and don't mind me and my idea of this rotating Earth thing.It
is already taking on a life of its own so I expect you to defend a
stationary Earth with all the intelligence you display with me.



-

On Mar 9, 8:35 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
In article
11af8f44-ea4b-47dd-940c-245c4f2ed...@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,





 oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 9, 2:44 am, Aidan Karley <name1_na...@email.provider.invalid
wrote:
In article <13t4d5qsb3qb...@corp.supernews.com>, Argusy wrote:
Ummm. I remember reading somewhere that several tonnes of meteorites
fall
on
this planet every day. Over millions of years, wouldn't that be a
considerable mass?

       Using a nice round number of 10 tonnes/day
       = 10,000 kg / day (just to keep everything in proper units).
       = 3,652,800 kg/year (just over 365 and a quarter days/year,
varies
slightly
over the next period)
       = 730,560,000,000,000 kg over the last 200 million years (one of
the
EE people
has a thing about his claimed expansion starting in the Triassic ;
again,
just a round
number)
       = 292,224,000,000 m^3 at 2500kg/m^3
       This volume would account for a spherical shell on the surface
of
the Earth
which is ... I make it 0.00057m thick. Unless I've slipped a digit
somewhere.
       Quick check, a 1m thick shell on the nominal Earth diameter will
have a volume
of 510,064,551,970,139 m^3. Yes, around 200 times more than meteoric
accretion. I have
a feeling I got a figure of about a half-mm the last time I did this
calculation.
--
Aidan Karley, FGS,
Aberdeen, Scotland

Wow ! look at all the weight for 1 metre of crust

Imagine moving thousands of times more weight than that  by a
mechanism
of  thermal convection. Now that you have your calculator out, how
much heat do you need to rise 1 metre of composition up 1 metre via
thermal convection  and then apply it to the internal dynamics of the
Earth.

I am sorry that I will not be around for the answer,plate tectonics
remains a great idea but is lost to 'convection cell'  advocates.and
there is nobody around to deal with the matter,not by yelling for
rotational dynamics but acknowledging that the thermally driven cells
are just too absurd and counter-productive.

Doubt it will happen though,people who are gungho about convection
cells when a more reasonable mechanism is on offer are unlikely to
deal in anything but trivia as your postings always illustrate.

Convection cells can explain the movement in a simple and
straightforward way.
--

I always said you are welcome to a geostationary convection cell
notion to suit your intelligence

and delighted that you are so open
about it,it spares me having to descend to a level which has'nt
existed since the 15th century where they built notions around a
stationary Earth notwitstanding that I would have to descend to a
subhuman state where you exist with your timekeeping level ,the fact
being that no human society in antiquity ever understood the noon
cycles to be 24 hours exactly -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

I do think a person suffers from a genuine illness if they cannot
interpret actual images of the Earth overtaking the planets as the
only way to affirm our and their motion around the central Sun but
even here it appears that the illness is far more entrenched than I
could have imagined,a real human illness that cannot find fault with
the false view of Newton that completely destroys the main Western
astronomical achievement of Copernicus known to Kepler and Galileo .

It is refreshing seeing somebody so open about convection cells and
good for you,keep up the good work in cleaning up grammar and notation
you hear and don't mind me and my idea of this rotating Earth thing.It
is already taking on a life of its own so I expect you to defend a
stationary Earth with all the intelligence you display with me.

On Mar 9, 3:56 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@
I always said you are welcome to a geostationary convection cell
notion to suit your intelligence and delighted that you are so open
about it,it spares me having to descend to a level which has'nt
existed since the 15th century where they built notions around a
stationary Earth notwitstanding that I would have to descend to a
subhuman state where you exist with your timekeeping level ,the fact
being that no human society in antiquity ever understood the noon
cycles to be 24 hours exactly -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9re...

I do think a person suffers from a genuine illness if they cannot
interpret actual images of the Earth overtaking the planets as the
only way to affirm our and their motion around the central  Sun but
even here it appears that the illness is far more entrenched than I
could have imagined,a real human illness that cannot find  fault with
the false view of Newton that completely destroys the main Western
astronomical achievement of Copernicus known to Kepler and Galileo .

It is refreshing seeing somebody so open about convection cells and
good for you,keep up the good work in cleaning up grammar and notation
you hear and don't mind me and my idea of this rotating Earth thing.It
is already taking on a life of its own so I expect you to defend a
stationary Earth with all the intelligence you display with me.



-

WHY is the mantle homogeneous ? If convection didn't exist would you
not expect heavy elements to collect at the base of the mantle?
Because the mantle is in continuous motion ( tranmitting internal heat
to the surface ) the mineralology is everywhere the same . Plate
Tectonics is just a minor consequence. And, why do you call it
geostationary ?

On Mar 9, 3:56 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@



I always said you are welcome to a geostationary convection cell
notion to suit your intelligence and delighted that you are so open
about it,it spares me having to descend to a level which has'nt
existed since the 15th century where they built notions around a
stationary Earth notwitstanding that I would have to descend to a
subhuman state where you exist with your timekeeping level ,the fact
being that no human society in antiquity ever understood the noon
cycles to be 24 hours exactly -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9re...

I do think a person suffers from a genuine illness if they cannot
interpret actual images of the Earth overtaking the planets as the
only way to affirm our and their motion around the central  Sun but
even here it appears that the illness is far more entrenched than I
could have imagined,a real human illness that cannot find  fault with
the false view of Newton that completely destroys the main Western
astronomical achievement of Copernicus known to Kepler and Galileo .

It is refreshing seeing somebody so open about convection cells and
good for you,keep up the good work in cleaning up grammar and notation
you hear and don't mind me and my idea of this rotating Earth thing.It
is already taking on a life of its own so I expect you to defend a
stationary Earth with all the intelligence you display with me.

 -

WHY is the mantle homogeneous ?

not expect heavy elements to collect at the base of the mantle?

Because the mantle is in continuous motion ( tranmitting internal heat
to the surface ) the mineralology is everywhere the same . Plate
Tectonics is just a minor consequence. And, why do you call it
geostationary ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -