Robittybob1

What is your background that allows you to dismiss arc so harshly?

Well that seems rather highly developed TK and TP compared to the demonstrations seen so far. A mutation that allows for these (TK and TP) to happen could also mean that another trait has suffered in the process. One gain maybe more than offset by the other.

I would not dismiss the idea completely.

Imagine if it happens to be you. You find you are able to do TK and TP. OK the rest of the community thinks you're nuts. How does that help you get a mate? It would be different if there was an extreme bottleneck in the human population and you happen to be the only male to survive. Then your offspring would have this trait whether or not it was an advantage. Well they seem to be extreme examples, but they have been thoughts on my mind.

How does it fit in with evolution? Why would the humans with these imaginary tendencies have a selective advantage?

Have you considered other alternatives that could cause an oscillating temperature of the core?

How much of this is your own work for you use the words "we" rather than "I" in the last section after a quote out of Wikipedia? For example "We are rather certain that the continents in question were once joined, so we have a rather good analog to compare other plates against."

What makes you think residual air currents are not something like Brownian motion? Is BM accentuated by heat? I have a feeling it will be. The residual air currents (in Darryl's case) were subsequently shown to be caused by heat. Heat from the turned off laptop! Note it is the movement of the tin foil sheet that is like the BM. The residual air currents are more like the movement of the molecules in the solution the particles are suspended in. In fact they are not just residual but currents continually being generated by heat from the surroundings. http://science.howstuffworks.com/brownian-movement-info.htm

Did you study the last video I linked to? Where the PSI wheel kept making small rocking movements even when Darryl left the room. That was the example and the cause I postulated to be random fluctuations in the air mass under the bowl. Just as BM is due to random collisions so does this. I was only looking for a simple physical explanation as to why the PSI wheel keeps moving fractionally. link.

Exactly and there maybe another type of motion which I have coined "a type of Brownian motion" that affects larger objects than is usually dealt with by classical Brownian motion. Let's call it Robittybobitty Motion just to make it distinct from BM then.

Why do you do the exact opposite of what I ask? I just wanted your latest framework of ideas. I don't want to look at specific examples that may or may not support your case. So anything that happened in the MOR or globally 10 million years ago is irrelevant. You seem to want to swamp the forum with the same studies and graphs over and over again. I just skip these for they are irrelevant to what I need at this stage and that is the hypothesis in a nutshell. Maybe I will give you the multichoice answers and you just tell me which ones fit your hypothesis. Would you do that?

When Brown first described Brownian Motion he had no idea what was causing it.

So you are using an obvious local measurement and suggesting that the rate has some bearing to the global effect. Surely you are not suggesting that rate is the global rate! I'm not wanting you to prove anything. I just want you to describe the basic principles behind your hypothesis, the ones you have stuck with up to this stage. Please can you be as brief as possible. Are you still needing a oscillating temperatures of the Earth's inner parts? Have you been able to link this to the Earth's magnetic field?

That is along the line I was thinking too. So would the real test be if the setup was stable, then to see if it can be moved later, but never lifting the bowl and resetting the foil on the point? For there must be a limit to how much settling can occur. So why did you even write that?

I didn't say it was Brownian Motion but "a type of Brownian Motion". I accept it isn't BM but some sort of motion quite close to the concept of Brownian Motion. What is the most massive object that could be moved by the random fluctuations of air pressure under the glass bowl?

Arc - I have had a look at the Bonatti et al, article you often refer to and there are diagrams (fig.5) clearly showing these rates are localized upwelling of solid mantle from the melt zone. I thought your theory needed a more global expansion of the mantle.

Well I'm not sure you can discount a type Brownian Motion at this stage. The small motions back and forth under the glass cover, and the person already out of the room. What is your best guess?

I am wanting to understand the mechanism of your hypothesis. I started reading that you were proposing that the Earth's Core varied in temperature and this made an expansion and this expansion, and contraction on cooling, results in the continental plates cracking open allowing infill at the mid-ocean ridges, and then on contraction subduction. The above to my current understanding depends on a global expansion and contraction of the Mantle. Whereas the original Tectonic plate movements were more a result of convection flows in the Mantle. OK these are simple unrefined concepts. All I want to know is which one does your idea depend on mostly? It is possible both depend on Core heating.

Could it be a type of Brownian Motion?

Further settling is the only thing that I can suggest too. He can't get movement every time. Does that suggest sometimes the set up was perfectly balanced to begin with, yet in the discussion he said there were times when it rotated more than two revolutions but they weren't recorded, so that makes settling more difficult to accept but still not impossible. Air currents were ruled out. There was no way air could affect the wheel under the bowl. He demonstrated that the wheel didn't move when he walked around the table. I also viewed another video where he explores the reasons behind the movement, called Telekinesis does distance matter? Just about debunks the idea himself!

I did not see any sign of a hoax.

This was checked as well with a video camera repeatedly recording an unwatched psi-wheel and it was found it did not move when there was nobody watching. OK the two videos only recorded 1/4 and 1/2 turn but something is better than nothing I suppose. In fact the 1/4 turn was so slow it was really strange. It was faster (possibly about 6 times) than the minute hand of a clock, like it took a couple of minutes to do the 1/4 turn. I am still thinking it has something to do with gravity and the foil slipping around to a more negative potential energy state. If he got it to do more than a complete circulation I'd have to consider another cause.

No I didn't read the article for I just want some specific information which relates to your own concepts. From your quote it says "The degree of melting of the mantle that is upwelling below the ridge", so to me that indicates the upwelling is mostly measured below the ridge. That is a local effect and not a global one. Do you agree with that assessment?

Could it just be another gathering of icy objects like another Kuiper Belt and not a planet as such?

Having done a bit more discovery on the topic I have heard the "force" comes out from the hands. There is a series of videos by Darryl Sloan who also is trying to discover the science behind PSI and I believe he was able to get his PSI wheel to turn (a quarter turn only) under a glass bowl. There could be basic science behind it but check out this video yourself.