You are using convection [...]

oriel36 wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:34�pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Good for you,you want subduction for water generation

?? Whatever.

and don't want it for your balooning Earth.

If you mean by subduction, that odean floor is buried by overthrusting,
then that is ok. But if you believe that the seafloor is literally
plunging in the mantle, you have to be crazy.

Let me show you something:

http://nachon.free.fr/GE/pacific/Philippines.jpg

See the Mariana orocline (E145/N20) ? The front is arc-shaped and show
the direction of absolute motion. It is lithosphere pushed from below by
mantle upwelling so that it overrides older seafloor and lithosphere is
stretched at the back of the orocline thus forming a new ridge. These
oroclines are *Everywhere*.

If you can't figure it out, then change of discipline.

--
Florian
"Toute v�rit� passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculis�e;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'�tre accept�e comme
une totale �vidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer

You only get one shot at promoting your balooning Earth and
considering you used a conventional plate tectonic explanation for the
generation of water what would I have to gain by discussing anything
with a person who can act like a spoilt child an indulge himself in
then concluding subduction does not exist Biological evolution is
always  intimately linked with plate motiom and I love that side of
geology too much to care for somebody who only traffics in surface
correlations.

No, no, no, ...You're confusing Plate Tectonics with continental
drift. Plate Tectonics is not about the beautiful segues of parting
plates, ... that's about Earth expansion; but about the ugly lies of
plate collisions that crumple crust and build mountains, and leave
them looking like this:-http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/blue.html
...which is also about Earth expansion.
:-)

The unfortunate part is that plate tectonics as a whole
package,demonstrating the forces acting on the Earth internally and
astronomically,fossil data,climatological elements ect  will be
undermined by junk concepts such as your own .As the person who uses
differential rotation as the common link between planetary shape and
crustal motion my only concern is that 'convection cells' do not
undermine plate tectonics rather than dealing with  the worthless junk
in your head.

Many are sucked into asking about 'mass' but I enjoy that the Earth's
climate and geology has not changed much since the dinosaurs and
mammals roamed the planet.There is nothing to be gained by believing
otherwise unless you have an addiction for exotic junk as is now found
in astronomy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

oriel36 wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:34�pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Good for you,you want subduction for water generation

?? Whatever.

and don't want it for your balooning Earth.

If you mean by subduction, that odean floor is buried by overthrusting,
then that is ok. But if you believe that the seafloor is literally
plunging in the mantle, you have to be crazy.

Let me show you something:

http://nachon.free.fr/GE/pacific/Philippines.jpg

See the Mariana orocline (E145/N20) ? The front is arc-shaped and show
the direction of absolute motion. It is lithosphere pushed from below by
mantle upwelling so that it overrides older seafloor and lithosphere is
stretched at the back of the orocline thus forming a new ridge. These
oroclines are *Everywhere*.

If you can't figure it out, then change of discipline.

--
Florian
"Toute v�rit� passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculis�e;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'�tre accept�e comme
une totale �vidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer

You only get one shot at promoting your balooning Earth and
considering you used a conventional plate tectonic explanation for the
generation of water what would I have to gain by discussing anything
with a person who can act like a spoilt child an indulge himself in
then concluding subduction does not exist Biological evolution is
always  intimately linked with plate motiom and I love that side of
geology too much to care for somebody who only traffics in surface
correlations.

No, no, no, ...You're confusing Plate Tectonics with continental
drift. Plate Tectonics is not about the beautiful segues of parting
plates, ... that's about Earth expansion; but about the ugly lies of
plate collisions that crumple crust and build mountains, and leave
them looking like this:-http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/blue.html
...which is also about Earth expansion.
:-)





The unfortunate part is that plate tectonics as a whole
package,demonstrating the forces acting on the Earth internally and
astronomically,fossil data,climatological elements ect  will be
undermined by junk concepts such as your own .As the person who uses
differential rotation as the common link between planetary shape and
crustal motion my only concern is that 'convection cells' do not
undermine plate tectonics rather than dealing with  the worthless junk
in your head.

Many are sucked into asking about 'mass' but I enjoy that the Earth's
climate and geology has not changed much since the dinosaurs and
mammals roamed the planet.There is nothing to be gained by believing
otherwise unless you have an addiction for exotic junk as is now found
in astronomy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article
f18f3f94-92e9-480f-ae23-d059ea590...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,





 oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have nothing to say to guys who believe in an ee concept that makes
a flat Earth look intelligent,I have much to say to plate tectonics
guys who are dragging those great outlines into a similar situation
by
ignoring geodynamics.It is almost harder to ignore geodynamics than to
take it into account in respect to geological evolutionary influences
but so far,I have the distinct and unpleasant feeling that the
trajectory of reasoning  is now lost ,a reasoning which uses stellar
dynamics to generalise rotational principles and apply them to the
Earth first and then graft in the mechanism as a more productive
solution for plate motion.

What people hope to achieve by ignoring geodynamics I do not know,it
has been on the table in its present form for a good few years now
with no pressure to adopt it,basically it exists as a halting
mechanism to stop 'convection cells' diluting the main argument for
plate motion and its long and short term effects.

I cannot imagine what dynamicists are going to apply to the Earth's
interior to generate the  40 km spherical deviation insofar as the
generalised rotational dynamics will almost certainly involve
differential rotation of the rotating composition in a fluid/flexible
state.There is no great upheavel with current plate tectonic outlines
other than the more productive geodynamics will answer more questions
than it will raise and besides,the 'convection cell' notions in
setting the internal composition and viscosity is not so important or
so far down the road that it cannot  be set aside for a more realistic
approach.

Maybe the problems are no longer technical but the bigger headache of
the 'scientific method' ideologies and that I cannot get involved in
insofar as it is what is generating junk concepts which are now in
competition with plate tectonics or keeping a geostationary mechanism.

Let me see if I can summarize your rambling statement.

You don't think that geophysicists can figure out why the Earth is
oblate rather than spherical. While you think that differential rotation
(which happens in stars) occurs in the Earth, you're adamant that
convection (which happens in stars) does not happen in the Earth. And
you have no data to support any of your claims.

Do I have it right?

--
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 -

In article
f18f3f94-92e9-480f-ae23-d059ea590...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,





 oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have nothing to say to guys who believe in an ee concept that makes
a flat Earth look intelligent,I have much to say to plate tectonics
guys who are dragging those great outlines into a similar situation
by
ignoring geodynamics.It is almost harder to ignore geodynamics than to
take it into account in respect to geological evolutionary influences
but so far,I have the distinct and unpleasant feeling that the
trajectory of reasoning  is now lost ,a reasoning which uses stellar
dynamics to generalise rotational principles and apply them to the
Earth first and then graft in the mechanism as a more productive
solution for plate motion.

What people hope to achieve by ignoring geodynamics I do not know,it
has been on the table in its present form for a good few years now
with no pressure to adopt it,basically it exists as a halting
mechanism to stop 'convection cells' diluting the main argument for
plate motion and its long and short term effects.

I cannot imagine what dynamicists are going to apply to the Earth's
interior to generate the  40 km spherical deviation insofar as the
generalised rotational dynamics will almost certainly involve
differential rotation of the rotating composition in a fluid/flexible
state.There is no great upheavel with current plate tectonic outlines
other than the more productive geodynamics will answer more questions
than it will raise and besides,the 'convection cell' notions in
setting the internal composition and viscosity is not so important or
so far down the road that it cannot  be set aside for a more realistic
approach.

Maybe the problems are no longer technical but the bigger headache of
the 'scientific method' ideologies and that I cannot get involved in
insofar as it is what is generating junk concepts which are now in
competition with plate tectonics or keeping a geostationary mechanism.

Let me see if I can summarize your rambling statement.

You don't think that geophysicists can figure out why the Earth is
oblate rather than spherical. While you think that differential rotation
(which happens in stars) occurs in the Earth, you're adamant that
convection (which happens in stars) does not happen in the Earth. And
you have no data to support any of your claims.

Do I have it right?

--
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 -

oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
This has gone on for far too long,differential rotation as a
generalised dynamic has been on the table for years   while nobody
else has proposed exactly what causes the Earth sphericity to deviate
40km.

What a moron! Everybody knows why the Earth is not a perfect sphere! You
must be sick.

--
Florian
"Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme
une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer

I have nothing to say to guys who believe in an ee concept that makes
a flat Earth look intelligent,I have much to say to plate tectonics
guys who are dragging those great outlines into a similar situation
by
ignoring geodynamics.It is almost harder to ignore geodynamics than to
take it into account in respect to geological evolutionary influences
but so far,I have the distinct and unpleasant feeling that the
trajectory of reasoning is now lost ,a reasoning which uses stellar
dynamics to generalise rotational principles and apply them to the
Earth first and then graft in the mechanism as a more productive
solution for plate motion.

What people hope to achieve by ignoring geodynamics I do not know,it
has been on the table in its present form for a good few years now
with no pressure to adopt it,basically it exists as a halting
mechanism to stop 'convection cells' diluting the main argument for
plate motion and its long and short term effects.

I cannot imagine what dynamicists are going to apply to the Earth's
interior to generate the 40 km spherical deviation insofar as the
generalised rotational dynamics will almost certainly involve
differential rotation of the rotating composition in a fluid/flexible
state.There is no great upheavel with current plate tectonic outlines
other than the more productive geodynamics will answer more questions
than it will raise and besides,the 'convection cell' notions in
setting the internal composition and viscosity is not so important or
so far down the road that it cannot be set aside for a more realistic
approach.

Maybe the problems are no longer technical but the bigger headache of
the 'scientific method' ideologies and that I cannot get involved in
insofar as it is what is generating junk concepts which are now in
competition with plate tectonics or keeping a geostationary mechanism.

oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> wrote:

This has gone on for far too long,differential rotation as a
generalised dynamic has been on the table for years while nobody
else has proposed exactly what causes the Earth sphericity to deviate
40km.

What a moron! Everybody knows why the Earth is not a perfect sphere! You
must be sick.

--
Florian
"Toute v�rit� passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculis�e;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'�tre accept�e comme
une totale �vidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer

This has gone on for far too long,differential rotation as a
generalised dynamic has been on the table for years while nobody
else has proposed exactly what causes the Earth sphericity to deviate
40km.

On Mar 19, 4:12�pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
In article
f18f3f94-92e9-480f-ae23-d059ea590...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,





�oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have nothing to say to guys who believe in an ee concept that makes
a flat Earth look intelligent,I have much to say to plate tectonics
guys who are dragging those great outlines into a similar situation
by
ignoring geodynamics.It is almost harder to ignore geodynamics than to
take it into account in respect to geological evolutionary influences
but so far,I have the distinct and unpleasant feeling that the
trajectory of reasoning �is now lost ,a reasoning which uses stellar
dynamics to generalise rotational principles and apply them to the
Earth first and then graft in the mechanism as a more productive
solution for plate motion.

What people hope to achieve by ignoring geodynamics I do not know,it
has been on the table in its present form for a good few years now
with no pressure to adopt it,basically it exists as a halting
mechanism to stop 'convection cells' diluting the main argument for
plate motion and its long and short term effects.

I cannot imagine what dynamicists are going to apply to the Earth's
interior to generate the �40 km spherical deviation insofar as the
generalised rotational dynamics will almost certainly involve
differential rotation of the rotating composition in a fluid/flexible
state.

There is no great upheavel with current plate tectonic outlines
other than the more productive geodynamics will answer more questions
than it will raise and besides,the 'convection cell' notions in
setting the internal composition and viscosity is not so important or
so far down the road that it cannot �be set aside for a more realistic
approach.

Maybe the problems are no longer technical but the bigger headache of
the 'scientific method' ideologies and that I cannot get involved in
insofar as it is what is generating junk concepts which are now in
competition with plate tectonics or keeping a geostationary mechanism.

Let me see if I can summarize your rambling statement.

You don't think that geophysicists can figure out why the Earth is
oblate rather than spherical. While you think that differential rotation
(which happens in stars) occurs in the Earth, you're adamant that
convection (which happens in stars) does not happen in the Earth. And
you have no data to support any of your claims.

Do I have it right?

--
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 -


This has gone on for far too long,differential rotation as a
generalised dynamic has been on the table for years while nobody
else has proposed exactly what causes the Earth sphericity to deviate
40km.

The onus is on those to come up with the actual rotational dynamics
for sphericity if they cannot accept differential rotation as a
generalised dynamic,I can't imagine how an alternative explanation
using actual observations is possible given the detailed analysis
already being done on rotating stars and the degree of sphericity with
respect to variations in Equiatorial speeds.

Until somebody actually comes out with a explanation for the Earth
sphericity other than the details I added in terms of rotational
dynamics then I have nothing to gain from any response,even silence
looks stupid when geodynamics remains cut off from geological
evolution.

Good luck to you and your stationary Earth or expanding Earth
perspectives,I enjoy my rotating Earth perspective regardless and I
mean that.

On Mar 19, 4:12 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
In article
f18f3f94-92e9-480f-ae23-d059ea590...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,





 oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have nothing to say to guys who believe in an ee concept that makes
a flat Earth look intelligent,I have much to say to plate tectonics
guys who are dragging those great outlines into a similar situation
by
ignoring geodynamics.It is almost harder to ignore geodynamics than to
take it into account in respect to geological evolutionary influences
but so far,I have the distinct and unpleasant feeling that the
trajectory of reasoning  is now lost ,a reasoning which uses stellar
dynamics to generalise rotational principles and apply them to the
Earth first and then graft in the mechanism as a more productive
solution for plate motion.

What people hope to achieve by ignoring geodynamics I do not know,it
has been on the table in its present form for a good few years now
with no pressure to adopt it,basically it exists as a halting
mechanism to stop 'convection cells' diluting the main argument for
plate motion and its long and short term effects.

I cannot imagine what dynamicists are going to apply to the Earth's
interior to generate the  40 km spherical deviation insofar as the
generalised rotational dynamics will almost certainly involve
differential rotation of the rotating composition in a fluid/flexible
state.There is no great upheavel with current plate tectonic outlines
other than the more productive geodynamics will answer more questions
than it will raise and besides,the 'convection cell' notions in
setting the internal composition and viscosity is not so important or
so far down the road that it cannot  be set aside for a more realistic
approach.

Maybe the problems are no longer technical but the bigger headache of
the 'scientific method' ideologies and that I cannot get involved in
insofar as it is what is generating junk concepts which are now in
competition with plate tectonics or keeping a geostationary mechanism.

Let me see if I can summarize your rambling statement.

You don't think that geophysicists can figure out why the Earth is
oblate rather than spherical. While you think that differential rotation
(which happens in stars) occurs in the Earth, you're adamant that
convection (which happens in stars) does not happen in the Earth. And
you have no data to support any of your claims.

Do I have it right?

--
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." ÐChris L.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


This has gone on for far too long,differential rotation as a
generalised dynamic has been on the table for years while nobody
else has proposed exactly what causes the Earth sphericity to deviate
40km.

The onus is on those to come up with the actual rotational dynamics
for sphericity if they cannot accept differential rotation as a
generalised dynamic,I can't imagine how an alternative explanation
using actual observations is possible given the detailed analysis
already being done on rotating stars and the degree of sphericity with
respect to variations in Equiatorial speeds.

Until somebody actually comes out with a explanation for the Earth
sphericity other than the details I added in terms of rotational
dynamics then I have nothing to gain from any response,even silence
looks stupid when geodynamics remains cut off from geological
evolution.

Good luck to you and your stationary Earth or expanding Earth
perspectives,I enjoy my rotating Earth perspective regardless and I
mean that.

On Mar 19, 4:12 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
In article
f18f3f94-92e9-480f-ae23-d059ea590...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,





 oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have nothing to say to guys who believe in an ee concept that makes
a flat Earth look intelligent,I have much to say to plate tectonics
guys who are dragging those great outlines into a similar situation
by
ignoring geodynamics.It is almost harder to ignore geodynamics than to
take it into account in respect to geological evolutionary influences
but so far,I have the distinct and unpleasant feeling that the
trajectory of reasoning  is now lost ,a reasoning which uses stellar
dynamics to generalise rotational principles and apply them to the
Earth first and then graft in the mechanism as a more productive
solution for plate motion.

What people hope to achieve by ignoring geodynamics I do not know,it
has been on the table in its present form for a good few years now
with no pressure to adopt it,basically it exists as a halting
mechanism to stop 'convection cells' diluting the main argument for
plate motion and its long and short term effects.

I cannot imagine what dynamicists are going to apply to the Earth's
interior to generate the  40 km spherical deviation insofar as the
generalised rotational dynamics will almost certainly involve
differential rotation of the rotating composition in a fluid/flexible
state.There is no great upheavel with current plate tectonic outlines
other than the more productive geodynamics will answer more questions
than it will raise and besides,the 'convection cell' notions in
setting the internal composition and viscosity is not so important or
so far down the road that it cannot  be set aside for a more realistic
approach.

Maybe the problems are no longer technical but the bigger headache of
the 'scientific method' ideologies and that I cannot get involved in
insofar as it is what is generating junk concepts which are now in
competition with plate tectonics or keeping a geostationary mechanism.

Let me see if I can summarize your rambling statement.

You don't think that geophysicists can figure out why the Earth is
oblate rather than spherical. While you think that differential rotation
(which happens in stars) occurs in the Earth, you're adamant that
convection (which happens in stars) does not happen in the Earth. And
you have no data to support any of your claims.

Do I have it right?


Convection in stars is speculative,a star's rotation and differntial
rotation is not and neither is variations in maximum Equatorial
speed,variations in differential rotation rates and variation in
sphericity.

At this stage I think both you with your convection cells notions and
the ee guys are well suited to each other leaving me to remain
content with geodynamics and its geological influences.I would have
nothing to gain with people who wish to remain with a thermally driven
convection cells and no geodynamics involved in geological evolution
no more than I would benefit from discussing matters with ee guys.


If you cannot follow the reasoning in its most basic outlines from
stellar rotational dynamics to generalised rotational dynamics in the
form of differential rotation bands and sphericity

then perhaps plate
tectonics is lost to a balooning or geostationary Earth ideas.Go ahead
and taunt each other and enjoy your wonderful convection cells notions
and the composition,viscosity and all that comes with it.It is truly a
remarkable conclusion to plate tectonics and befitting the
intelligence of people who cannot make a simple leap from observed
rotational dynamics and spheriocity even though elements of it have
been known for centuries,Differential rotation adds more detail n but
I am not going to bother appealing to guys who do not have the
intelligence to recognise it as a generalised dynamic.

Be happy with your geostationary mechanism and keep those expanding
Earth guys at bay with your sharp intellects,do you hear now and make
sure you growl and sound authoritative.