On Mar 22, 9:50 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net

I don't think George was arguing that premise.

Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Mar 22, 9:50 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Explain that to Georgie who is apparently convinced "that the volcanic
activity has been widely distributed and sporatic in time as indicated
by continued loss of craters due to lava flows." (sic!)

or again:

"In other words, volcanic activity has resurfaced the planet, and in
doing so, has erased many prior impacts. That is largely why over time,
the graph shows a DECREASE in impacts - because the surface has been
resculpted by volcanic activity."

See, you're buddy truly think that the graph shows a decrease in impacts
because of the lava flow resetting the surface, whereas the graph show a
decrease in the DENSITY of craters because there is simply less
asteroids that impacts as time goes by.

The graph simply shows the expected crater density for a surface of a
given age.

That is all.

Indeed.

Georgie stated it was showing a decrease in craters number with time. It
is very clear from the two statements cited above.

Even highschooler know that the frequency of asteroid impacts decrease
with time in the inner solar system.

I don't think George was arguing *against* that premise.

No, but he argues that the curve shows a decrease in craters numbers
largely because of resurfacing volcanic events. It shows that he did not
understand the paper, crater counting ptinciple and the graph.

For sure, If the frequency had been constant with time, that would have
been much easier to date surfaces, but that is not he case (see the work
of Hartmann, Neukum and Ivanov cited below.)

There are plenty of other works that made that case. What it is more
refined than previous studies using
more detailed maps of the Martian surface. In particular they were
able to test the hypothesis that small craters
were simply secondary impacts produced by major impacts.

The observation of fresh impacts proved that this hypotheis was
incorrect.



Something else for you to ponder.

That crater density curve is constructed assuming Mars hasn't
expanded.

How do you suppose an expanding Mars would modify it?

Good point. There are two parameters that must be considered:
- increase in surface
- increase in attraction

And frankly, I don't know how precisely both would combine to affect
cratering rates.

If your claiming the geologic activity is increasing on Mars, its
obvious you can't read it either.

I claimed that the frequency of major volcanic episodes increased with
time. Do you agree with that statement, yes or not?

Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
I wonder if you worth more than Georgie... I remember you were the one
stating that buoyancy is not related to pressure gradient. What a pity.

I said hydrostatic gradient was irrelevant.

Do you agree that the lithostatic pressure gradient is relevant, yes or
no?

Anyway, I remember clearly that the discussion was about the inititation
of subduction. What makes a slab sink if its density is initially higher
than that of the upper mantle?

On Mar 22, 9:50 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:

Explain that to Georgie who is apparently convinced "that the volcanic
activity has been widely distributed and sporatic in time as indicated
by continued loss of craters due to lava flows." (sic!)

or again:

"In other words, volcanic activity has resurfaced the planet, and in
doing so, has erased many prior impacts. That is largely why over time,
the graph shows a DECREASE in impacts - because the surface has been
resculpted by volcanic activity."

See, you're buddy truly think that the graph shows a decrease in impacts
because of the lava flow resetting the surface, whereas the graph show a
decrease in the DENSITY of craters because there is simply less
asteroids that impacts as time goes by.

The graph simply shows the expected crater density for a surface of a
given age.

That is all.

Even highschooler know that the frequency of asteroid impacts decrease
with time in the inner solar system.

I don't think George was arguing *against* that premise.

For sure, If the frequency had been constant with time, that would have
been much easier to date surfaces, but that is not he case (see the work
of Hartmann, Neukum and Ivanov cited below.)

There are plenty of other works that made that case. What it is more
refined than previous studies using
more detailed maps of the Martian surface. In particular they were
able to test the hypothesis that small craters
were simply secondary impacts produced by major impacts.

Something else for you to ponder.

That crater density curve is constructed assuming Mars hasn't
expanded.

How do you suppose an expanding Mars would modify it?

If your claiming the geologic activity is increasing on Mars, its
obvious you can't read it either.

I wonder if you worth more than Georgie... I remember you were the one
stating that buoyancy is not related to pressure gradient. What a pity.


I said hydrostatic gradient was irrelevant.

On Mar 22, 11:18 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:

I claimed that the frequency of major volcanic episodes increased with
time. Do you agree with that statement, yes or no?


In a word, no.

On Mar 22, 11:18 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
I wonder if you worth more than Georgie... I remember you were the one
stating that buoyancy is not related to pressure gradient. What a pity.

I said hydrostatic gradient was irrelevant.

Do you agree that the lithostatic pressure gradient is relevant, yes or
no?

Lithostatic refers to the same thing.

Anyway, I remember clearly that the discussion was about the inititation
of subduction. What makes a slab sink if its density is initially higher
than that of the upper mantle?

Is that really the question you mean to ask?

Florian a écrit dans le message
1ie9hl9.l5qwzrwolb3iN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net>...





Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:

On Mar 22, 11:18 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
I wonder if you worth more than Georgie... I remember you were the
one
stating that buoyancy is not related to pressure gradient. What a
pity.

I said hydrostatic gradient was irrelevant.

Do you agree that the lithostatic pressure gradient is relevant, yes or
no?

Lithostatic refers to the same thing.

Technically not.

Hydrostatic pressure in geology, usually refer to the pressure of the
fluid in the cracks, fractures, porosity in the upper crust.

Lithostatic pressure refer to the pressure caused by the column of rock.

Now Stuart, could you please answer to this simple question, a question
that is trivial for a geophysicist who developped a computer model of
convection.

Do you agree that the lithostatic pressure gradient is relevant to
buoyancy, yes or no?

[...]

Anyway, I remember clearly that the discussion was about the
inititation
of subduction. What makes a slab sink if its density is initially
higher
than that of the upper mantle?

Is that really the question you mean to ask?

It was the object of the original discussion, Stuart. May be that time
plays tricks on your mind...

--
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

  Go to this page  if you have an interest in the dynamics of the Earth.

http://geology.ref.ac/marchal/cadre.htm

Are you a member of G.I.F. or AGSO?

JL- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Mar 22, 11:18 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
I wonder if you worth more than Georgie... I remember you were the one
stating that buoyancy is not related to pressure gradient. What a pity.

I said hydrostatic gradient was irrelevant.

Do you agree that the lithostatic pressure gradient is relevant, yes or
no?

Lithostatic refers to the same thing.

Technically not.

Hydrostatic pressure in geology, usually refer to the pressure of the
fluid in the cracks, fractures, porosity in the upper crust.

Lithostatic pressure refer to the pressure caused by the column of rock.

Now Stuart, could you please answer to this simple question, a question
that is trivial for a geophysicist who developped a computer model of
convection.

Do you agree that the lithostatic pressure gradient is relevant to
buoyancy, yes or no?

[...]

Anyway, I remember clearly that the discussion was about the inititation
of subduction. What makes a slab sink if its density is initially higher
than that of the upper mantle?

Is that really the question you mean to ask?

It was the object of the original discussion, Stuart. May be that time
plays tricks on your mind...

Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Mar 22, 11:18 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
I claimed that the frequency of major volcanic episodes increased with
time. Do you agree with that statement, yes or no?

In a word, no.

What's your agenda Stuart? Is somebody pointing a gun at you or what?
why are you lying like that?

I give you another chance. Look again at the graph:

http://www.esa.int/images/ChronologyModel_v02_H.jpg

Do you still claim that the frequency of major episodes of volcanic
activity did not increase with time, yes or no?

The IERS value for axial rotation through 360 degrees -

"ln the case of the Earth, P0 is 23 h 56 min 4.1 s (i.e. one sidereal
day) "

http://geology.ref.ac/marchal/cadre.htm

That value is roughly 3 minutes 56 seconds off for the 360 degree
rotational value notwithstanding there is absolutely no basis for
justifying axial and orbital motion in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds
-

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

There is nothing remotely close to this in respect to a total human
catastrophe,what possesses people to believe the Earth rotates through
360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds is far,far worse than
any creationist mentality.

It is a late 17th century construction by
Flamsteed which inteprets the return of a star 3 minutes 56 seconds
earlier each 24 hours as denoting axial rotation.

It is a destructive
and dangerous notion that has brought this entirte civilisation (if it
can now be called that) into disrepute.

It is not possible to work productively with such a 'sidereal time'
perspective

no more than it is productive to work with a notion that
geological and biological evolution occured in seven days as a
physical fact.In all the years showing how clocks are kept in sync
with the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes at 24 hours/360
degrees I have yet to see a single objection to the astrologically
based 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value.

The fact that the sidereal/
solar perspective for the Earth's axial and orbital motion is about
as dangerous as it can possibly get,

there is not the slightest sign of
any movement towards the really stable timekeeping principles which
dictate otherwise.

You have to be insane to believe what the major organisations promote
and that is why it is so dangerous -

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.3116

The Earth's rotation is now the least of concerns,the loss of
humanity's ability to deal with a false 'fact' or appreciate the
actual principles of astronomical timekeeping and the Earth's
motions .How long are people going to disgrace themselves before
future generations when the correct principles are there before all to
see and enjoy -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

Hey "oriel", what is it with you and spinning things? Maybe
you should join Petra in one of her vortexes.

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?

Hey "oriel", what is it with you and spinning things? Maybe
you should join Petra in one of her vortexes.

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?

In article
1133f6f6-5bc5-4105-b8bd-2d78804dd...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,





 oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
The IERS value for axial rotation through 360 degrees -

"ln the case of the Earth, P0 is 23 h 56 min 4.1 s (i.e. one sidereal
day) "

http://geology.ref.ac/marchal/cadre.htm

That value is roughly 3 minutes 56 seconds off for the 360 degree
rotational value notwithstanding there is absolutely no basis for
justifying axial and orbital motion in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds
-

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

There is nothing remotely close to this in respect to a total human
catastrophe,what possesses people to believe the Earth rotates through
360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds is far,far worse than
any creationist mentality.

You mean it doesn't?

It is a late 17th century  construction by
Flamsteed which inteprets the return of a star 3 minutes 56 seconds
earlier each 24 hours as denoting axial rotation.

What does it indicate? That the universe is rotating backwards 360
degrees in a year?

It is a destructive
and dangerous notion that has brought this entirte civilisation (if it
can now be called that) into disrepute.

You're overstating the case a little.

It is not possible to work productively with such a 'sidereal time'
perspective

Hm. Astronomers do it all the time.

no more than it is productive to work with a notion that
geological and biological evolution occured in seven days as a
physical fact.In all the years showing how clocks are kept in sync
with the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes at 24 hours/360
degrees I have yet to see a single objection to the astrologically
based 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value.

360 degrees in 24 hours is solar time.

360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds is sidereal time.

What's so awful about that?

The fact that the sidereal/
solar perspective for the Earth's axial and orbital motion  is about
as dangerous as it can possibly get,

How so?





there is not the slightest sign of
any movement towards the really stable timekeeping principles which
dictate otherwise.
You have to be insane to believe what the major organisations promote
and that is why it is so dangerous -

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.3116

The Earth's rotation is now the least of concerns,the loss of
humanity's ability to deal with a false 'fact' or appreciate the
actual principles of astronomical timekeeping and the Earth's
motions .How long are people going to disgrace themselves before
future generations when the correct principles are there before all to
see and enjoy -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

I don't understand what the problem is or why sidereal time is so
"dangerous". Indeed, the second article you refer to presents exactly
why you need the concept of sidereal time.

--
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 -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -