In article
7d32c84b-a982-4c64-9d0d-ad528323b680@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> wrote:
As for differential rotation,
there's no evidence that it happens within the Earth.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1274940/neogene_sedimentary_deformation_
in_the_chilean_forearc_and_implications_for/

I suppose a concept like rotational dynamics and its geological
affects would only emerge when the amount of people not offended by it
is more than the people who are offended by it,the thing is that
'convection cells' are so conceptually weak as a proposed mechanism
that I am surprised that rotational dynamics has not been taken up a
lot quicker.

Maybe if you debated the issues on their merits instead on your
perception of other people's emotions, people would take you more
seriously.

In any case,somebody is moving in the right direction for a change.

From reading an article it appears that there may be a tendency to
decouple some tectonic activity partially from underlying plate
motion thereby relieving some obstacles between crustal evolution and
surface feature generation and events.

All in all,it is a good development even if it does cast further doubt
on the internal mechanism swallowing a plate wholesale

via a very
weak conceptual notion of convection cells.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1274940/neogene_sedimentary_deformation_
in_the_chilean_forearc_and_implications_for/

I suppose a concept like rotational dynamics and its geological
affects would only emerge when the amount of people not offended by it
is more than the people who are offended by it,the thing is that
'convection cells' are so conceptually weak as a proposed mechanism
that I am surprised that rotational dynamics has not been taken up a
lot quicker.

In any case,somebody is moving in the right direction for a change.

In article
7d32c84b-a982-4c64-9d0d-ad528323b...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

 oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
From reading an article it appears that there may be a tendency to
decouple some tectonic activity partially from underlying  plate
motion thereby relieving some obstacles between crustal evolution  and
surface feature generation and events.

All in all,it is a good development even if it does cast further doubt
on the internal mechanism swallowing a plate wholesale

It casts the same doubt on your idea that differential rotation has any
effect.

via  a very
weak conceptual notion of convection cells.

It's not "very weak" except to those who don't understand it. There's a
lot of evidence for it and it's plausible. As for differential rotation,
there's no evidence that it happens within the Earth.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1274940/neogene_sedimentary_def...
in_the_chilean_forearc_and_implications_for/

I suppose a concept like rotational dynamics and its geological
affects would only emerge when the amount of people not offended by it
is more than the people who are offended by it,the thing is that
'convection cells' are so conceptually weak as a proposed mechanism
that I am surprised that rotational dynamics has not been taken up a
lot quicker.

Maybe if you debated the issues on their merits instead on your
perception of other people's emotions, people would take you more
seriously.

In any case,somebody is moving in the right direction for a change.

--
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.

via  a very
weak conceptual notion of convection cells.

It's not "very weak" except to those who don't understand it. There's a
lot of evidence for it and it's plausible. As for differential rotation,
there's no evidence that it happens within the Earth.

On Mar 14, 9:43 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:


via  a very
weak conceptual notion of convection cells.

It's not "very weak" except to those who don't understand it. There's a
lot of evidence for it and it's plausible. As for differential rotation,
there's no evidence that it happens within the Earth.

Funny,funny,funny.


The mainstream response is that of a boiling pot.Let me show you what
it looks like -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhK0Igxq1E4

Now somehow,there are bright sparks who can apply that flat
bottomed,non rotating 'boiling pot' principle to the internal dynamics
of the Earth but I prefer to learn lessons from the magnificense of
stellar rotational dynamics and apply the generalised dynamics to the
Earth in terms of shape first and then as the primary cause for
crustal motion and subsequently a major factor in the development of
surface features.I think most intelligent people get the picture
without having it shoved down their throat -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwCpcoS0jKc

Th 'convection cell' idea is not so far down the road that it cannot
be altered towards a more productive mechanism .I will say nothing of
the irritation of having to continue in this manner but considering
what you represent,my irrritation is a minor thing.

I ask you to consider me as a computer program gone wrong but then
again,the opportunity to discuss something with a responsible person
is now approaching zero.

In article
7240aec1-041b-4a71-b256-84240a868...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,





 oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 14, 9:43 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:

via  a very
weak conceptual notion of convection cells.

It's not "very weak" except to those who don't understand it. There's a
lot of evidence for it and it's plausible. As for differential rotation,
there's no evidence that it happens within the Earth.

Funny,funny,funny.

The mainstream response  is that of a boiling pot.Let me show you what
it looks like -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhK0Igxq1E4

Now somehow,there are bright sparks who can apply that flat
bottomed,non rotating 'boiling pot' principle to the internal dynamics
of the Earth but I prefer to learn lessons from the magnificense of
stellar rotational dynamics and apply the generalised dynamics to the
Earth in terms of shape first and then as the primary cause  for
crustal motion and subsequently a major factor in the development of
surface features.I think most intelligent people get the picture
without having it shoved down their throat -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwCpcoS0jKc

Th 'convection cell' idea is not so far down the road that it cannot
be altered towards a more productive mechanism .I will say nothing of
the irritation of having to continue in this manner  but considering
what you represent,my irrritation is a minor thing.

I ask you to consider me as a computer program gone wrong but then
again,the opportunity to discuss something with a responsible person
is now approaching zero.

Why do  you think you have special privileges when it comes to making
analogies? You draw an analogy between a star's differential rotation
and your claim that the Earth rotates, and you ignore the differences in
scale and viscosity. Yet you forbid geologists to draw an analogy
between other convection systems (you know, the sun has convection in
it, too) even when they account for differences in scale, geometry,
temperature gradient, and viscosity.

--
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 -

Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
Why do  you think you have special privileges when it comes to making
analogies? You draw an analogy between a star's differential rotation
and your claim that the Earth rotates, and you ignore the differences in
scale and viscosity.

BTW, the differential rotation of the core has been demonstrated
sometimes ago by Jian Zhang and  Xiaodong Song, from the Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory (University of Illinois).

It is between 0.3 and 0.5 degrees/year. That represents a full rotation
every thousand years, quite impressive in a geological time scale.

--
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

oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwCpcoS0jKc

Nice vortices. Though, you should not dump the growing earth model.

Rotation is important in that model. Actually, I think it is possibly a
parameter controlling the rate of the growth, the process of matter
condensation if you prefer.

--
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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwCpcoS0jKc

Why do you think you have special privileges when it comes to making
analogies? You draw an analogy between a star's differential rotation
and your claim that the Earth rotates, and you ignore the differences in
scale and viscosity.

oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwCpcoS0jKc

Nice vortices. Though, you should not dump the growing earth model.

Rotation is important in that model. Actually, I think it is possibly a
parameter controlling the rate of the growth, the process of matter
condensation if you prefer.

--
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

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

Earth expansion is junk with no regard for physical
considerations.While many shout 'mass', even a simple line of
reasoning based on fossils and land animals sinks that
conclusion .

Whatever. Enough time lost with you.

--
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

oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Good,stick with your surface correlations and Earth expansion,you
would not like fossil data of land animals demonstrating that great
creatures roamed an Earth which is pretty much the same size today.

Whatever. I don't know where you read that a growing earth was not
compatible with terrestrial animal, but that was bullshit.

--
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

Earth expansion is junk with no regard for physical
considerations.While many shout 'mass', even a simple line of
reasoning based on fossils and land animals sinks that
conclusion .