THE EXPANDING EARTH -- #df version

Plate tectonicists reject Earth expansion...
(...because no-one seems to be able to think of a mechanism, and
therefore won't look - the 'Masters of the College' syndrome.)

Plate tectonicists also ignores the first order global torsional
structure of the Earth's crust.
(Now, this is not the first time the Earth's rotation's gone
unnoticed, but it really is a joke is it not, that here we are,
looking at the Earth from the Moon, sending Missions to Mars, looking
on our tellies at devastations caused by torsional structure in
another --'sphere', marvelling at the spirality of structure from one
end of the galaxy to the DNA structure, and yet geologists don't,
won't or can't recognise the first order imprint of rotation on the
Earth's geological structure. <more rant snipped>

Global torsion and Earth expansion are inextricably linked in an EE
model. This site's going to outline the torsional aspect. Sooner or
later everyone's going to have to start thinking (again) about the
expansional aspect, and what it means for their own neck of the
proverbial woods.

Trouble with hiding the head in the sand is you get grit in the eyes.

Possible candidates for expansion thus far are:-
1. Mass creation - EMT or Universal Null?
2. Phase change?
3. Continuing acccretion/ asteroidal impacts/ space dust?

DF.
#df version at <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/page1.html>

df continues to ignore basic physcis, geology and a host of other subjects
simply because he can't be bothered to actually learn what plate tectonics is
as opposed to what he thinks it is.

<gibberish snipped>

Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"

DF don't worry to much about Bigdakine, all he has to offer is one
logical fallacy after another, as exampled above.

Possibly the result of "subduction" rather than deduction.

JT

What, you two work as a team? Tweedle dumb and tweedle deaf?

Z

We can watch the plates move year by year with GPS.
We can see convergence, divergence, and transform motion.
Did plate tectonics just start when we turned on the GPS
instruments 10 years ago?

John

There you go theorizing again!!

>Z
>

Dale

news:aihktugtgkjo79qk7...@4ax.com...

'Sright, Stuart ... forget about all the fiskus and the other-subject
hosts, we're not talking about them. My wife complains I'm even
ignoring her since I started this business, so don't get in the way or
you'll have her to deal with as well! This here page is about global
torsion and the Earth Expansion that goes *withit. Didn't you read
the Abstract? Plate tectonics has *nothing to say about this till it
knows which way round it is when it gets up in the morning, so say
nothing, ...unless you have something useful to tell everybody since
that last mighty shift in the goalposts, what plate tectonics really
*is* all about then (the whole world's waiting for a new posting on
that one). But do it on another page, OK?. Don't start tooting your
whistle and making a whole lot of smoke on this one. The big boys are
doing *round tectonics here, ...3-dimensional + bigtime - not that
silly flat platie nonsense on the USGS site and others you said's ok
for kids and teachers. So just sit back, enjoy the ride, and have a
laugh at man's infallibility. ...And look out your (H)EE hat too,
you're going to need it when you have to change gear and bow for
applause.

^ ( ^ - Don.

Yeah I read it.

It's filed under my comic relief folder.

Again, its not late to get a college degree in geology or physics or biology or
something else that matters..

I suggest you start paying more attention to your wife. Your time will be much
better spent.

And EE is fact, oops,my bad!

Z

John,
Surely, plate tectonics doesn't have copyright on crustal motion.
Wait and see if the construction gets us there. Right now I'm not
sure if all that VLBLI stuff means very much anyway. We're surely
working well within noise limits. Do vlibi calculations take into
account the possibility of up*andout movement of the base stations?
I don't know - I'm asking. I know they didn't used to. Do they
factor in the possibility of expansion? Are the sensors set up to
measure spreading along ridges as well as across? Do we know even
how much the Earth's out-of-shape gut has behaved over the last ten
years? And in the credibility stakes, ...would you put your money
on ten years of vlibi, when the stratigraphic record suggests stop-go
pulsational movements that need a few million to switch. It's nice
black-box stuff, sure, but on geological timescales it seems a bit
iffy to think that because movements are known to happen over millions
of years that we might just jag *the metre or so in the ten that
count.
Don

--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Discoverer of Telfer; Kintyre & Nifty Mines in The Great Sandy Desert.
Discoverer of the South Atlantic Submarine Gold Placers
_ 40 Millions Tons estimate _
Founder of The TRUE GEOLOGY

* The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://membres.lycos.fr/jpturcaud/
* The True Geology ( previously Refutation of the Horrid Geological Myths )
http://membres.lycos.fr/xxx/ ( Not available due to plagiarism hazards )

Breaking News
"THE GOLDEN RULE"
"Gold and intrigue in the desert"
"The true story of the discovery of the Telfer gold mine"
Author : Bob Sheppard, President of the Australian Prospectors'Union
Author's contact & web page : www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/
Order from : Hesperian Press, PO Box 317 Victoria Park, 6979 W.Australia.
Official launching in Perth soon.

~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~

"Don Findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> a écrit dans le message de news:
5f164087.0211...@posting.google.com...

"snipped "

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020729/020729-9.html

Earth's girth grows
Our planet's waistline is mysteriously increasing.
2 August 2002

"If matter is being redistributed towards the equator, the question
is: from where? Cox and Chao reckon that the flip is far to fast to be
due to flow in the bulk of the Earth's rock. And there has been no
measurable alteration in the weight of atmosphere recently, ruling
this out as an explanation."

Just another piece of evidence for PT to dismiss, or just simply
ignore.

JT

Don,

You may be confused on geodesy. VLBI, the observation of astronomical
targets like quasars (I think), was one way we looked at Earth surface
deformation a decade ago. It is still practised, but the vast majority
of geodetic measurements are now made with GPS, which listens to a set
of satellites that broadcast a beacon. It is the same way cars can
now be equipped to monitor their location. There are literally
thousands of measurements that precisely show how the plates are
moving today. Unambiguously, there is convergence at subduction zones,
divergence at ridges, and transform motion at strike-slip faults.
The plates are in motion very much in accord with plate tectonics.

John

http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/office/ganderson/pinroch/node7.html

"...one important unanswered question in processing GPS data:
precisely what is meant by the ``best'' time series returned from a
given data set? Possible answers include the series with the lowest
scatter about some trend, the series with the closest match with
theoretical expectations (though this does seem dangerous; what if the
theory is wrong?), ..."

JT

As was pinted out a couple of months ago, this does not represent a net volume
change for the earth, but rather a redistribution of mass, not the creation of
new mass.

It is the hallmark of kook science to somehow view every unexpected change as
evidence for their pet theories.

I suggest you actually read Cox and Chao's article. You might learn something
about geodynamics.

Then again you might not.

John

J. Taylor <jo...@gorge.net> wrote in message news:<q9antuo89fpe879vh...@4ax.com>...

You're back, get tired of plonking yourself?

If you could read for comprehension, rather than for your pet theory,
you would see, "from where"

True confessions?

But what ever I read will never be enough to get you to even open your
eyes!!

Your pretense at understanding probability is refuted by your past
post, endorsing conclusions as impossible, without even examining the
question.

JT

You do not have a clue as to what you are even talking about!

If you did you could possible see your statement is an inference I
never made, but it is consistent with your standard line of reasoning
to jump to conclusions, to speak with certainty to cloak your
ignorance.

What was it you stated, so matter-of-a-fact about the Sun and energy,
a few posts back?

You are making the same error again, not knowing what you are talking
about!

Think about this, if the shape changes it distorts GPS measurements.
If the circumference around a sphere increases how is it possible the
radius has not? It is not possible!!!

The level you will stoop to defined your pet theory is appalling!!

JT

> Earth's girth grows

Not only is there no claim of mass added or radius expanded,
it's too bad the Nature journalist didn't read the
original paper either:

from Cox & Chao Science paper:

> In principle, climatic general circulation models, especially models coupling the atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere with land hydrology, can help to explain the J2 changes.

> Indeed, some secondary interannual variability in J2 is presumably climatic.

> However, traditional GCMs simply do not have sufficient physics or knowledge built into their climatic feedback mechanisms to anticipate sudden changes such as the recent observed J2 changes.

> Further, GCMs are almost invariably too conservative and tend to underestimate the climatic variability when compared with in situ and ground truth data, because of insufficient resolution in the numerical computation.

Translation: they think it is the ocean/atmosphere changing, probably
related to the recent occurrence of some El Nino's, that explains J2 trends.

Apparently it is too easy to quote half-understood news blurbs in formulating
exotic theories.

John

Never left.

But we went over this a couple of months ago. You were wrong then. You're wrong
now.

There is no change in volume and no change in mass. And there is absolutely
nothing in that article to give EE comfort.

I can read for comprehension. Try reading the original article.

Or, as is your custom, feel free to continue to embarass yourself in a public
forum.

Just stating the obvious as it pertains to yourself.

Fine. Stay ignorant. Your choice.

LOL.

Bottle that whine, and try reading the actual scientific literature.

But I suppose thats too difficult for you.

I don't deny I'm badly out of date about many things. But the upside
of that is the predictive aspect of the model. See if it accommodates
things 'better', by which I mean taking all the disparate plates and
showing how they're just one, in expanding torsional disruption. If
we're talking convergence, divergence, and transgressive motion of the
segregate bits, then we're not at all in disagreement - it's a matter
of how it's interpreted, and I'd suggest the idea of subduction (as
everyone thinks of it) is replaced by 'overskating' or some
equivalent, and 'transforms' as strike-slip faults (the strike of
what?) is set aside. I don't think anything's being 'transformed'.
Everything that ever happened is still in evidence, albeit
redistributed.

I regard the GPS as all very well, but all those imponderables are in
there - and no doubt taken into account - e.g. the "up to half a
metre in a day just due to the gravitational pull of the Sun and the
Moon" I remember reading from somewhere. (If we can measure that,
then sorting out the significant metre in ten years should be no
problem -?) But when it comes to the face value of hundreds of
millions of years of crustal motions I would rather argue from, and
hope to see the evidence in, the geological record - in whopping big
lumps, not with two thirds of it hiding down 'downcarried zones' when
it's admitted nothing's doing the carrying any more.

The point I'm making is the added ingredient of torsion which plate
tectonics ignores. It's either there or it isn't. If it isn't, then
it's back to the dispute between expansion and plate tectonics. If it
is, then plate tectonics *has to* stop dissembling and recognise it
(the torsion), and explain how it would incorporate it. If you like,
it's a game of chess and a case of 'check'. As things stand torsional
tectonics accommodates the disparity of PT in a single disruptive
event (simpler, more integrative, therefore 'better'). If PT
recognises the torsion, then by default it recognises expansion.
...And has to seriously consider a mechanism. Torsion (in the crust)
first - let's sort that out. Expansion (in the core/ mantle) later.
Once it's agreed there's something to look for, it gets a lot easier
to see.
don
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/page1.html>
"Only a prepared mind can know what it sees" - or something (Pasteur I
think).

Don't worry Jean-Paul, I'm into refuting horrid geological myths too,
and I'm a believer in the law of universal pressure as well! If
everybody pulls together , we'll lay this one!
df.

Actually, nothing was gone over. What happened then, as now, you made
a bunch of declarations and it seems expected everyone to concur.

How do you come to the conclusion there is no change in volume? If
you have a bulge in one area, then if the volume is to remain constant
there would need to be an accompanying depression, yet none was
reported, but you state with certainty "no change in volume"

Of course, all your conclusions which then proceed from this error are
invalid as well!

Send it!

This is a very disingenuous statement, considering the archive is
filled with your lack of ability, or willingness to keep the issue in
focus and your resorting to ad hominem arguments.

Embarrassed?

Contrary to your active imagination, I am NOT advancing a theory, or
hypothesis, but attempting to examine the evidence and allow it to go
where it leads.

I know doing this must be unfamiliar territory to you, but none the
less, it is the case.

This sounds an awful lot like the path to enlightenment is by agreeing
with you!

Let's test that theory send the article!

JT

Dale
In the Sierra/Nevada's

"Don Findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:5f164087.02112...@posting.google.com...

One of us doesn't have a clue, and it's not me. I doubt you could tell
me what the J2 term in the Earth's gravity field is (hint, it is the only
number interpreted in the Science paper). I know Chao, as well as
his work, again I wonder what your experience in understanding
lateral and temporal variations in gravity would be.

But you're probably used to being dissed on these boards.

My point is that the J2 term measures the DIFFERENCE between
the mass near the equator and the mass near the poles, NOT the
ABSOLUTE mass. Do you get it? NO GAIN NOR LOSS IN THE
MASS OF THE EARTH WAS SUGGESTED BY THE SCIENCE
PAPER.

John

True, but you are overlooking one important fact, the Earth is *not* a
sphere. I think the correct term is an oblate spheroid, which means that the
diameter at the equator is larger than the diameter through the poles. Which
is what one would expect from a spinning body that was not completely rigid.

Mark.

If the Earth's equatorial bulge is because it's rotating, is it
reasonable to speculate that a redistribution of mass towards the
equator (more mass more in this direction) might also have something
to do with rotation?

df.

Greg Anderson would be surprised to see his quote invoked to question
plate tectonics. He is talking about 1 mm/yr stuff over short time
intervals, not the several cm/yr rates over a decade that the plates
have been measured to move.

He concludes with "Overall, this may be at most a philosophical question",
which you omitted.

John

You don't seem to get it. As John tried to explain it to you, what the Chao and
Cox study examined was the J2 term, the coefficient of the L=2 term in the
spherical harmonic expansion of the Earth's gravipotential. This harmonic does
not reflect net mass changes period. It only tell us something about how that
mass is distributed.

Changes in J2 tell us whether mass is being redistributed from pole to equator
or vice versa. That is all it tells us. And what Chao and Cox found is that the
rate of change of J2 changed sign within the last few years. The Earth has now
started to become more oblate, where as previously it was beoming more prolate.

An interesting result, suggesting now that redistribution of the Earth's mass
is now principally governed by something other than post-glacial rebound.

Again, read the actual paper, not a news account.

Sorry, but you're hopelessly out to lunch on this one.

Send it? Get thee to a library. Heck even Borders has Science and Nature.

Second why are you even commenting on something you've only read through second
hand sources?

Next time, read the primary literature then comment.

The issue is in focus. And I suggest you look up "ad hominem" in the
dictionary.

Seems you don't what that is either.

<rest snipped>

Geez! Where do I begin? Why would Greg Anderson be surprised? Plate
tectonics is beyond question, or fear of finding answers which would
not support plate tectonics?

Since the above statement of "surprise" is not his reasoning, but
yours, the answer most likely would be neither.

And since we are on the topic of reasoning, let's examine your
statement above, for the presents of it, in light of your quote, in
this thread, from a post which proceeded the above statement.

The quoted statements above seems to be a very clear express of GPS
shows all the movements of plate tectonics.

Yet, my post, quoting Anderson, which clearly states a "possible
means" of selecting the data is along theoretical expectations and
will give you your results, is construed to be nothing more than
questioning plate tectonics.

NOTE: Using theoretical expectations is in essence the equivalent of
shooting an arrow, then drawing a bull eye's eye around the arrow,

Maybe, stated more simply. Does any one ever select data to fit the
conclusion (theory)? I don't know! Anderson himself said, "...one
important *unanswered* question..." , but you on the other hand are
certain an unanswered question supports your theory.

So, we have an unanswered question about data selection, used to
support the conclusiveness of your GPS statement, but it would be a
surprise to question it. Excellent reasoning John!!

No! What is wrote is a statement about data selection

Damn devious of me!! Who would think you would have the wit to follow
the link I placed so you could read it for yourself.

But what ever type of question it might be, it is still a question
which escapes you.

JT

>
>John

> Cox study examined was the J2 term, the coefficient of the L=2 term in the

______________

...All of which brings us back to the point JT was making before the
smoke went up: Rotation Rules OK - You Bet! ....Stuart, behave
yourself in class. No fires - ok?!
df - fringe artist
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/page1.html

Non-sequiter.

For the Earth, rotation rules in the atmosphere, oceans and outer core

It has no effect on Plate Tectonics.

If you are disallowing any and all data in this discussion, you should shift
over to the religion board. If you are allowing data, then you are forced
to admit the plates are moving with the relative vectors of plate tectonics.

I can see why NASA has given up hope of convincing skeptics that the
astronauts went to the moon, some people simply do not recognize facts
as plain as the noses on their faces.

John

There was no misquote, nor a claim, but your effort to twist to
conform to your way of thinking is at least consistent.

Will there be a difference in thinking?

Whether the data is allowed, or disallowed, the question will still
remain how it was selected.

Let's be clear, plate tectonics was held to be true by me until I had
the opportunity to hear the reasoning of those whom endorse it.

You are your own enemy!!

JT

>John

This is weird.

Your name is "John D. Taylor", at times.

http://www.vev.ch/de/graffiti.htm

There is a "John D. Taylor", who is quoted by a "Christopher Morton"
many times
on news groups.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22John+D.+Taylor%22+Christopher&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=785mci%24ohk%241%40nntp6.u.washington.edu&rnum=2

Christopher Morton likes to say this about plate tectonics:

It's like arguing plate tectonics and evolution with a creationist who
thinks that god created the earth in 4004bc.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Christopher+Morton%22+tectonics&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=f502au8r7kega1m5qulh1k948e6p2vki9v%404ax.com&rnum=3

This "Christopher Morton" likes to stir up news group debates by
misinterpreting comments:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Christopher+Morton%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=110820020711154737%25leehrrsn%40amaonline.com&rnum=7

You seem to be starting a specious argument with me.
I assume this is a coincidence?

John

Well, spin's a pretty necessary ingredient for many things (galaxies
to the atom), and given its role in what you've just mentioned it's
pretty strange if spin should have nothing to do with the deformation
of the crust *over time*, when it's well recongised it has to do with
its primary deformation right at this very minute in making it 40-odd
kilometres more in one direction than the other. (..The whole Earth,
on which the crust is less than soft paste...)

....Which, surely, is precisely why the crutch/ chair leg of plate
tectonics should be set aside whilst the possibility of spin-related
'convection' (however that word may now be conceived) - (or should we
say now 'spin-related mass (re)distribution of the Earth') - is
considered.

df.
Non sequitur? Some things just defy logic ..like Spin rules (..OK.)

No, it is not.

The reason rotation plays a strong role in organizing flows in the atmosphere,
oceans and outer core, is because these media also have low viscosity.

Whether rotation is an important consideration in convecting flows is governed
by the Taylor Number.

In the case of the Earth's Mantle, the Taylor number is to small by many orders
of magnitude to have any organizing influence on convective mantle flow.

A. It is wrong to attribute all of the Earth's bulge to its rotation.

B. THis has nothing to do with PT or mantle convection.

You've mixed apples and oranges. The Earth's rotation contibutes to the bulge
by virtue of the centrifugal force, which modifies the Earth's equipotential
surface into an oblate ellipsoid.

The Earth's mantle has a viscosity of 10^22 P, about that of Industrial steel.

Your problem is your attempt to do science by analogy..

If you're interested in gauging the effect of rotation on manlte convection, I
suggest you look up the Taylor number, insert appropriate values and see what
you get.

For rotation to have a noticeable effect on convecting systems, the Taylor
number should be ~ 1.

Tell us what value you obtain for the Taylor number of the Earth's mantle.

Obviously, the arguing plate tectonics part

Just as at times your name is John Vidale without the cloak of secrecy
of the "_"

Of course, you should think this is ridiculous since you use the same
e-mail address.

As an example of how misguided are your Sherlock Holmes efforts.

The phone directory of North America list 60 million phone numbers, of
these 4,300 are John Taylor.

It has been estimated there are about 300 million people using the
Internet, but due to the rules of domains there is one and only one
jo...@gorge.net

So your theory is John D. Taylor is Christopher Morton?

Could be I would not know.

But it ain't me, next theory

After over looking the most relevant and definitive piece of evidence,
the email address, you start clutching at any evidence to support your
theory.

Here is what Bigdakine thinks of that, "It is the hallmark of kook

>

Now there is a unique identifier!!

Yes, it is a coincidence, since it had been my intent to ignore you.

Really John where is this going? You are convinced every aspect of
the theory is beyond question and I have came to see there is a great
deal which needs to be questioned. So unless you care to objectively
examine the evidence (which I know you believe you are doing, it is
just the inconsistence in your logic which says otherwise) it is
pointless to continue.

JT

>
>John

_______________

Stuart,

My goodness you can put up some smoke! I want to talk about the
earth's crust (which is relatively brittle) as less than soft paste in
the geological scheme of things, and you want to talk about the mantle
(which is relatively ductile) as being like industrial steel.
Something tells me that this exchange isn't going very far.

Yes, I am a great believer in science by analogy, if by 'science' you
mean the stuff of progress, rather than the mundanity of
consolidation. Use of analogy is the way we get about in the world
and ensures our survival. It's a word we use for our awareness that
whenever nature finds a successful way of doing things, it keeps on
doing it over and over again, in similar ways but with slight
variation according to the material at hand. It's the 'connective
tissue, the cement, ...not the bricks. We recognise these
'connectors' as "Natural Laws", and our awareness of them derive from
our 'sense of similarity (and difference)' tempered with our sense of
proportion - or 'ratio-nality'. Nothing pejorative about it. High
art in fact mate - nothing less. It's where the breakthroughs are
made (sounds like you skipped the cognitive flexibility test - here |
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/page1c.html | (go back ten spaces -
miss two turns). But I think it's the other sort of science you mean
- the 'real' stuff.

Whatever else I might have said about redistribution of mass in the
Earth around its ambital region being due to things celestial and
mechanical (like rotation), I'm really restricting myself to the crust
and what we can see in it at face value - 'writ large'. I don't
expect to find in in 'Taylor's number' whatever it is. Don't get me
wrong. I'm sure it's a pretty good number as numbers go, it's just
that I don't think the answer (whether the Earth's rotation is to be
found in the geology of the crust) is to be found in it or any other
numerancy. .... And if John Vidale's reading this then John, I
don't have a clue what JT's number is either (why don't you ask
him?...), but I don't think it's very relevant to the discussion on
logic ....Why Taylor's number anyway, and not mother Earth's? Who's
got the copyright on what's going on here - Mr Tayor, or Ms Earth?
don.

> Yes, it is a coincidence, since it had been my intent to ignore you.

Probably a good idea, our views seem to be diverging rather than converging.

John

Translation: "How dare you try to apply actual science to my hypothesis"

Simply because you don't understand it and don't want to, does not give you
license to call it *smoke*.

Sorry, Don, nothing personal, but you are so out there.

No it is not. You can't do science by *feel*.

The simple fact that you can't seem to grasp, is that forces due to the earth's
rotation are quantifiable. Science does a pretty good job with this. Ocean
models do a good job of computing features like the Gulf Stream.

Not only are the forces of rotation quantifiable, so are the viscous forces or
pressure driven flow which balances them.

It is not a mystery.

It has its limitations.

My turatella shells also have spirals. You don't think thats a result of
rotation do you?

The below is *smoke*

Quite. The stuff we can test quantitatively. The simple fact is rotation forces
are simply far to weak to have an effect on ductile flow in the crust or mantle
or plate tectonics.

That is a fact. Whether you wish to accept it or not is up to you.

For the record, the Taylor number for the mantle is on the order of 10^-18, for
the crust, even less.

You're wrong.

What you propose is *magic* not science.

Translation: " I will resist all attempts to apply tests to my ideas. I am
right, the last 100 years of fluid emchanics is completely wrong despite
hundreds of repeatable experiments showing it to be highly precise theory."

Unfortunately far too many like you resist education at all costs. Its too bad.
One never learns anything that way.

Its relevant to the illogic of claiming that Chao and Cox's study has anything
to do with EE or fundamental problems with PT.

The Taylor number gauges the relative strength of forces arising from spin to
viscous forces. The holds true for any fluid body. The Earth's mantle has a
Taylor number, the outer core has Taylor number etc.

I've computed Mother Earth's mantle Taylor number, and its infinitesimal.

Ms. Earth obeys Mr. Taylor just like any other fluid body in the universe.

You spend 99% of the time arguing from ignorance. Your attempt at
epistemological nihilism is par for the course.

Instead of admitting their wrong, which they can never do, they then try to
claim that nobody really knows whats going on, therefore all hypotheses are
equally valid.

You'd be better off spending 99% of your time learning, rather than arguing
from ignorance. Sadly, there is not glimmer of hope that you will.

I appreciate your enthusiam for the subject, its too bad you're not interested
in the fundamentals.

The crust is just too stiff to care that the Earth is rotating, and so is
the mantle. Only the water, air, and molten part of the core have
circulation that is sensitive the the daily rotation of the Earth.

I do like your enthusiasm, though, and your nicely-done web page.

John

Look U2, ...John (with all this interleafery Stuart loses me
completely) so I'll have to reply to you. ....Whatever happened to
the ingredient of time in this business of numerancy? Even astrology
takes time into account, but you blokes evidently don't even bother,
Taylor's number or no Taylor's number. Better minds than mine (!)
have opined that on the scale of things geological, time renders rocks
with about the fluidity of water, so there - case rests (small forces
over time - Solenhofen Limestone, steel girders, things, and all of
that). But even if it didn't, a broken bit of 'industrial steel' is
still broken, and only as strong as the break. Deformation affects
water that is full of 'rock' (partly consolidated sediments), as much
as it affects rock that is full of water (pore fluids)- water being
the weak 'break' that is. And crystalline rocks still have a lot of
H2O in them too, in one form or another. So you fellows are 'at it'
again - being disingenuous. If something as weak as just water can
put the brakes on the whole Earth spinning, then what's the big deal?
Differential spin between the inner and out core seems to be de
rigeur, why not between the mantle and the crust too? Come to that,
why shouldn't the weather scraping past have a similar effect?
Things just take a bit longer that's all. Some posts back John
Curtis reckoned losing all this weather to space could account for the
Earth getting bigger (I suppose as the pressure comes off according to
JPT's Universal Pressure Principle), but (with due respect to JPT) I
don't think he's right.... we can't have weather making the Earth
bigger, and twisting it about at the same time, can we? (I don't
think the Earth's rotating because of the weather - don't hang that
one me, ...just yet).
don

Either someone is or is not infamous. Your opinion on the matter then
is either true, or false. If true there really is no need to set it
off with "to me," the facts will support your conclusion. If false,
then "to me" services to prove you do not have any facts. Which
renders your statement slander, but this would require holding a moron
to the same standard as normal people.

:-)

Keep'em coming John, you are suppling all your own nails!

JT

I guess you just like to argue, and I'm wasting my time, but I'll spell it out
for you once more.

My remark "infamous (to me)" meant you annoy me, but maybe you
don't annoy other people as much, and was intented to moderate a somewhat
intemperate remark.

Go ahead, parse this email to launch WWIII from my adjective "infamous".

John

Thanks for the explanation, it occurred to me later in the day, a lot
later, you may have not meant the word in the same way it first
appeared to me.

Please forgive my haste, there was one more possible explanation to
explore and I failed to explore it. Sorry!

Now can we drop this?

JT

>John

POST 2 - <song> "AT NIGHT WE SEE AN OVAL MOON.."
(going round and round in tune...)
__________________________________________________

That was it, the light relief. Now, back to biz: Questions for the Board:-
1. Is the Earth rotating?
2. Is the evidence to be seen in the crust?
3. And the mantle?
4 Will it bend spoons?
5 Is Earth rotation intrinsic to earthquake generation (other than tides)
6. What does plate tectonics have to say about this?

SPEAK - O LEGLESS CRUTCH!

df.
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/p2-page2.html#begin>

http://tetide.geo.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/doglioni/doglioni_pub.html

Here are most of the papers I referred to in the previous post.

Hello Ian,

Thanks for your feedback and the ref. there.

...Well, .. this was where I came into this Newsgroup around early
October
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=5f164087.0210051551.183109b1%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26safe%3Doff%26q%3Dboudinage%2B2002%26meta%3D
looking for a bit of feedback on what people thought about big
boudinage - whether (a hundred years on) it (and what was implied by
it) was catching on yet or not. JFM offered the opinion it would
need to be proved. So nothing new after thirty years... I'm rather
surprised at him, him being a Frenchman with Gallic flair and all. I
would have thought he would have been a bit more positive since it
was from that part of the world that boudinage sprang from in the
first place, ...and since there's a bit goes on about it from time to
time there as you say.

A little known fact is that the chap who coined the term in the first
place, way back when (1909), reckoned it was something big to take
into account in regional geology, but it never caught on. At all.
Funny that...., when you think that at the same time Wegener and
others were going on about the whole crust stretching and pulling
apart, and the motto of geologists at the time was all about how the
small-scale structures were the key to understanding the large scale.
No, they weren't dumb (really), just concentrating on big folds at
the time. Far more photogenic, ...the Alps were full of them and it
was easier to publish, and then there was all business about
'polyphase deformation', ..good toothsome stuff, compared to just a
few warps and bulges of boudinage. All he did was just leave folks
wondering about what he was going on about (I see they're still
arguing). A few others have had a go since, but it still meets the
same blank consensus "Uhh?"

Big boudinage is the leg-in to understanding crust/ mantle behaviour
in extension, and the Doglione et al are really a bit on the
johnny-come-lately side (but good to see) but they're going to meet
the usual problem of what constitutes proof. And how much of it will
do. So far as I've been able to work out, 'proof' has nothing to do
with quality of fact, it's simply about getting the nod of popular
consensus, which needs time to work out in which direction its
self-interest lies. How does one prove a chair leg, or a table -
what some would say are neat, useful things and constructs of concrete
physical reality ('fact' in other words), but others, the rabbits of
'real science', insist need 'proof'? But no amount of 'proof' will
satisfy them, because they're not interested in it. It's a smoke
screen. In fact when you hear them say "Prove it", you know you've
got them rattled about something they don't quite understand. It's a
cognitive flexibility thing to do with scale of approach - some can,
some can't. Rabbits as everyone knows, are only equipped to measure
bricks. They do a helluva job with the micrometer, mind you, but
they just can't mix the cement, ...much less slap it on. It's just
the way it is. So although they've got all the stuff to hand, they
can't build much that's useful. Not even if they copy. They're
happiest burrowing in the pile, fitted out with all the latest
thingies and gizmos hanging off them like on the battlfield, but are
not capable of doing much with them other than making the sounds and
watching the lights when they twiddle the nobs. Understand this, and
you understand why colonisation of foreign lands with a few bangles
and beads was so easy. You can hear them coming a mile away, beeping
and flashing like R2D2 with everything new. As far as construction
goes though, the legless crutch we're talking about
<http://www.tower.net.au/~don/subduction.html> seems to be the best
they can come up with. And they really do get upset when anyone tries
to use their bricks for another purpose (*^The bricks, I should say,
but it's in the nature of rabbits that they regard them as theirs
(acquisitive to a fault, the little buggers, when it comes to 'proof',
...and who defines it.)

Don
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/p2-page2.html#begin>

> vid...@ucla.edu (John_Vidale) wrote in message news:<13d4d242.02111...@posting.google.com>...

Really, your ignorance of even modern culture (let alone technology!)
is utterly appalling; where _have_ you been living for the last decade?
The GPS, or "Global Positioning System" does not use "VLBI," but precise
differential timing measurements from a constellation of orbiting satellites
carrying precision atomic clocks. Simple GPS can achieve reliable position
measurements down to tens of centimeters; "differential mode GPS" can pin
positions down to a fraction of that. The signal-to-noise ratio is =VERY=
high, which is why GPS receivers are now hand-held consumer electronics
items that people with middle-class incomes can afford to take along on
backpacking trips.

However, for =REALLY= precise measurements, we bounce laser beams off
corner-cube reflector-equipped satellites such as LAGEOS. Laser satellite
geodesy combined with GPS geodesy can obtain relative positions to an
accuracy of 1 to 2 _millimeters_. Since the plates drift at rates of
1 to 10 _centimeters_ per year, we are =EASILY= able to observe continetal
drift with a =VERY= high signal to noise ratio. And if the Earth was
"expanding," there is NO QUESTION that it could =EASILY= be observed ---
_AND IT ISN'T_. So please go off and beat some other dead horse.

-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

Thanks for setting me right there Gordon. Truly,... JPT's right on
the money - ignorance *is a cosmic sin -tsk tsk. But an even bigger
one is being afraid to let it show. ...Which brings up the other
related question (again):- if plates do move with such internally
lockstepped determinative accuracy hither (and thither) can someone
have a go at defining what a 'transform' actually is then, if movement
at ridges is supposedly being *transformed* down 'subduction zones' -
and conveyor belts don't exist any more? What is this
'transformation' thing all about if they're not just stretchmarks on
the Fat Lady Our Mother? Do PT-ers really all still swallow the
suduction line the USGS puts out as the standard? Stuart there
reckons it's still good enough for schools, colleges and teachers (in
the fight against creation science), but admits a new explanation is
really needed. Anybody got one? Stuart? ...

Don.

PS. I suppose when you say it could "easily be observed" you mean ,
that just as there are maps that show the mm of plate movement vectors
in a year 'sideways', there are also maps that show plate movement
vectors 'upways' - (anyone know of any sites?) - and from these we
know that the "up-to-half-a-metre-in-a-day" movement of the crust due
to just tidal motion can be regarded as all 'noise', and therefore
(all) justifiably discarded?. I suppose absolutely no component of
that vertical 'noise' stays around as 'real signal'? Other than the
rubble of collapsed cities I mean. Mountain belts maybe. Water
heights over spreading ridges (if we reckon we can tell the difference
on a windy day). A mm here and a mm there ...all adds up I guess.
.... Just look at Mount Everest. Or is that the 'stress transfer
effect' over how many thousands of kilometres? And there's the Yellow
river (and more than a few others) doing their level best to keep pace
with it all (this 'stress transfer' uplift). Anyone like to have a go
at computing all that - in millimetres, please. No, mate...the only
dead meat around here is on the PTerobus, and the drivers are already
feeling for the gear shift, and rootling around for their new hats.
_____________

Not sure of your point here. Yes, tides move the Earth a lot each day,
and the plates move only cm per year. We see both clearly and
unambiguously. Many mountains we see rising, basins subsiding, and
transform faults allowing sideways motion. For example, there are now
1000 GPS stations in China, and a comparable number in Japan and the
US, each recording motions with accuracy on the order of less than
a few mm per year (in 3 components, vertical, north-south, and
east-west). The tidal oscillations do not interfere with measuring
yearly motions.

John

John,
1. I'm basically sceptical of those who want to impress with measured
millimetres, what's in direct evidence by the thousands of kilometres,
especially when they don't even recognise the Earth's rotation in the
geology.
2. I much more regard the notion of inexorable gravitational creep off
the ridges being the reason for the 10-12 cm a year (say) than
material being regularly intruded at the ridges. Gravitational
correction to a one-off intrusion decades ago (uplift/ expansion)
would then show up (for years) as 'drifting plates' (on a
constant-sized Earth). I think periodic (pulsational) substantial
emplacement seems a much more reasonable premise than continuous
inexorable intrusion (***), otherwise the two 'inexorables' would just
equilibrate and there would be no ridge, just a fissure and extrusion/
(intrusion). So the fact that there are ridges at all really speaks
of them being 'ahead of the game' i.e. expansion. Sideways movement
says nothing against growth, and not much for it either, other than is
self-evident from the presence of ridges in the first place. And
vertical components, what are we talking about there? Less than 1cm
radial equivalent for a 10-12cm circumferential? Who's going to get
excited about less than a cm a year when the ridges are already
kilometres in height and growing? Is gravitational creep left out
because we think it doesn't figure? (cooling subdsidence away from
the ridges has always sounded daft to me - why is it favoured over
gravitational creep?).
3. Just a reminder of that rapid unexplained but measured dimensional
build-up JT drew attention to a while ago.
Don.
*** = just had a thought - It depends. I need to think about it.

I guess I'm not writing clearly.

There is no doubt that subduction zones are converging at rates
of cm per year. There is no doubt that rifts are spreading at rates
of cm per year.

The tides are also present, and they are well understood
as well. We measure the level of the sea with tide gauges, the gravity
field of the Earth, and can map even small variations in the level of
the oceans around the world.

We have thousands of nearly noise-free measurements showing the pattern
of movement of the plates.

The Earth is not expanding now; the "unexplained" mass movement
is from the poles to the equator, not outward. It is probably due
to changing patterns of circulation in the air and oceans. We also
measure whether the Earth is expanding, and it is not.

John

Well.... since the subduction zones are about 4 times less than
spreading ridges, are the measurements consistent with this
difference?

It was not an "unexplained" mass movement, it was an "unexplained"
were the hell did it come from movement, since the poles are still
rebounding (read expanding)

The Earth is expanding and it is contracting, the question is whether
expansion is of such a nature it exceeds contraction and requires a
mass generation source.

JT

>
>John

Yes, the area disappearing at subduction zones matches the area
formed at spreading ridges. We've known this for a while.

What are you talking about?
Are you saying someone measured this, or that you saw it in a dream?

Again, ???
There is no data for such motions, period.
If "The Earth is expanding and it is contracting" is the
mantra of a religion, let me know, and I'll stop trying to
bring facts to bear on the issue.

I'm just now picking which talks and posters at
the AGU meeting to see tomorrow. We're trying to interpret
sub-mm-per-year motions in terms of core flow, climate, and tectonics.

You must be just using this board to kid around;
you can't seriously believe what you posted.

John

>
> JT
>
> >
> >John

John, if you want to play the bozo routine, then I hope, for the sake
of a career choice, your skill at it is better than your skill for
critical thinking.

Measured what? Are you saying, "unexplained" now means it is known
where the mass came from? or are you suggesting the poles are not
rebounding and it is news to you?

Really? None what so ever? You will deny anything, to maintain you
are right, even when it undermines your position.

Why do ridges spread? Heat! What happens to a material when it is
heated? It expands!

What is happening in a subduction zone? A cold, or contracting point
is pulling material towards it.

No data for such motions, period?

You should have stopped when you were just behind.

Now after saying there is no such motion, you call it a religion.

There is no theory, but plate tectonics and John Vidale is it prophet!

:-)

I thought I was serious, but after going through the convoluted piece
of reason of your's above, do no think it will be possible responding
to your post.

JT

>
>John
>
>
>
>>
>> JT
>>
>> >
>> >John

Are there some observations of the Earth you would like to mention,
aside from the concept that things expand when heated and contract
when cooled? GPS, InSAR, or VLBI, for example, provide direct
measurements of ground motion at the surface of the Earth.

It is difficult to discuss the scientific consensus that the mantle is
convecting, in contrast to your opinion that the Earth is expanding,
if you'd rather just call me a prophet and a bozo.

John