gentleman-farmer

gf) It's not the hands that are of interest - they merely act as an extension of the cable. The point of interest is the inertial frame - the inertial frame (wherein lies the motion hence the momentum) is perpendicular to the line of force known as centrifugal force (which is quite real as the Olympic athlete clearly demonstrates) swansont gf) Centrifugal force does not originate from the momentum of the hammer and has no relationship with the cosine of 90º -- centrifugal force originates from the time rate of change of the instantaneous straight line portion of the orbit as it goes curvilinear in accordance with Newton's 1st Law: a body in motion will follow a straight line unless acted upon by an external force In this case the external force is being executed by the Olympic athlete \ gf /

C H gf) Your responses C H are always so jejune that I suspect you are an alien from Pluto Where is the centrifugal force in that picture? It is in every pixel C H gf) ask swansont he brought up the subject of But a force perpendicular to the motion can do all manner of work - as we see in this illustration gf /

DH gf) Your statement is not thought out correctly :: centrifugal force is not called a fictitious force (or unreal as you say) because it doesn't exist - it is called fictitious because the force does not exist in the inertial frame. Our very existence on this planet owes its gratitude to centrifugal force and the resultant formation of the equatorial bulge (with a constant 295.25 gradient) that maintains axial stability. Please look up centrifugal force and inertial frame - and it'll become clearer By the same token swansont is in error also because he based his response on your faulty analysis Here is an example :: the work is being performed along the line of the cable - while the inertia is in line with the hammer / / gf /

gf) swansont) gf) I didn't give the example of Centrifugal force as an example of an attractive force nor did I suggest it - the example (as I stated) was one of a force perpendicular to the motion that can perform work And that is a correct statement gf

swansont gf) Centrifugal force is an example where the force does not lay in the inertial frame; and where the force is perpendicular to the motion. But all manner of work can be performed by the force. swansont it would help if you were a little more specific - gf /

Conventional thought as expressed by the USGS follows the line that mountains (like the Rocky Mountain range - see illustration) are formed by a process initiated by colliding slabs of lithospheric plates. That the process is invalid is demonstrated by the use of two dimensional drawings where slabs and processes appear to be functional and based on scientific discovery. In reality earth surfaces are spherical and they cannot interface (nor function) as illustrated. This lesson is learned early in the educational process when school children make top hats of construction paper. The construction requires that folding edges be cut to remove interfering material. We're all familiar with this process - /\/\/\/\/\/\ One might be wise and ask - "Why did the USGS use a two dimensional drawing (with great lateral depth) that carries with it an implied science that doesn't exist?" Next we'll look at the Boussinesq equation and its representative graph that demonstrates (for foundations, and by extension, colliding tectonic plates) that within less than six times the width of the engaging surfaces, the compression forces at depth are reduced to complete insignificance For those unfamiliar with the science - the dissipation of compression forces is achieved through friction and shear. This relates to the common means of describing the concept using the illustration of a compression cone / / CAPTION: gf /

There is one force system (based on the principles of physics that can be quantified mathematically) that accounts for not only the movement of the tectonic plates, but earthquake and mountain building, and the observed rise and fall of land masses. It accounts for the existence of volcanoes, and hot springs, and the huge lava deposits that are known to exist I discovered (and published) the details of the system in 1998 and have coined the term The RB-Effect to describe it. The RB-Effect (or Rotational Bending) is derived from a term used in the metals industry: it describes an object that is subjected to bending while in simultaneous rotational motion. Typical examples can be made of rotisserie spits; another with engine crankshafts that experience bending from piston loading during rotation. It has direct application in the earth sciences. I will give greater details after we discuss mountain building. All readers should know that the RB-Effect has undergone close scrutiny and has been improved upon over the years. The mathematics are very complex and required the use of a computer program called Mathematica I worked with a professor in the math department of a major university - they purchased the program and solved the many math problems we encountered Being as it's been studied and developed further over the past eleven years or since publication - I would hope that readers here would concentrate on learning and not be adversarial. Frankly I will ignore all adversarial responses as many very talented people have been involved in this thank you gf /

There is one force system (based on the principles of physics that can be quantified mathematically) that addresses all the following issues - I will identify that system when appropriate The system of forces must account for not only the movement of the tectonic plates, but for earthquake and mountain building, and the observed rise and fall of land masses. It must account for the existence of volcanoes, and hot springs, and the huge deposits of lava known as the Columbia Plateau - the Deccan Traps - and the Ontong Java Plateau It cannot use the collision of plates in the process of mountain building - or separation of oceanic plates by thermal means at mid-ocean ridges. It cannot claim validity of the process of subduction - as each of those processes violate physical law and are invalid as a science gf /

insane_alien gf) Give us proof - you are quick to say Okay that is one fact I want to see moontanman gf) The chaotic part's right - and I'd hope you'd not give thought to the plates moving in any regular manner with chaotic processes in control. The earth sciences require a system of forces that are verifiably uniform world wide, that are unchanging through the ages, that are based on the principles of physics that we know to exist - and can be quantified mathematically. This system of forces must account for not only the movement of the tectonic plates, but for earthquake and mountain building, for the observed rise and fall of land masses. It must account for the existence of volcanoes, and hot springs, and the huge deposits of lava as found in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho in the United States known as the Columbia Plateau and the lava floods of India, known as the Deccan Traps or those in the Pacific Ocean north of the Solomon Islands called the Ontong Java Plateau It is insufficient to base science on "well-observed fact" as D H proposed in the 6 th post of this thread. If we accept that notion some might be pre-disposed to accept the Ptolemaic geo-centric view of the universe - for what is more obvious than the sun crossing the sky? (& please swansont - don't quote that out of context - context matters) Science (as does physics) relates to physical principle and mathematical verifications. I'm going to open a new thread soon, Examining the "physics" in geophysics (mountain building). A new thread will be necessary because the arguments against current (mountain building theory) follow the path (of the dissipation of compressive forces (stresses) though shear) gf

insane_alien says gf ) Okay here is a quote from insane_alien himself that clearly shows that he thinks convection is the movement of material (rather than heat transfer as it actually is) gf) Sure would be interesting to see how the convection in the mantle was measured insane_alien - until you show proof of that measurement I'm gonna figure you're making it up gf)

insane_alien gf) I thought you were looking up convection - or have you forgotten As for the mantle not being hot magma - you'll have to look elsewhere for that too - because I never said it was You might check with yourself first, then D H , moontanman, and Mr Skeptic insane_ alien forgot he stated gf) Other than that I guess you're on your own - my view is expressed - in this picture from post #40 and I made this comment -- NOTICE - I said does not gf) I would hope that the next time you use this tactic how many times do we need to say it you'd be a lot better informed. / / gf /

D H gf) Sorry D H - you have no credibility - I listed a page earlier that gave temperature ranges and viscosity values for magma (see post 23) - if you chose to ignore the data posted and then claim some superior knowledge - that is your choice Here is that reference again - see table therein http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/volcan&magma.htm BTW regional references are un-professional gf

insane_alien gf) Good idea - you should have done that - convection relates to heat transfer - not material transfers (at least in this Universe) As it relates to this thread - magma can exert a force during expansion and phase change. Beyond that magma is dead as a prime mover. And adding heat will not change the physics - all it'll do is cause the magma to go to the next phase - vaporization. The earth sciences require a system of forces that are verifiably uniform world wide, that are unchanging through the ages, that are based on the principles of physics that we know to exist - and can be quantified mathematically. This system of forces must account for not only the movement of the tectonic plates, but for earthquake and mountain building, for the observed rise and fall of land masses. It must account for the existence of volcanoes, and hot springs, and the huge deposits of lava as found in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho in the United States known as the Columbia Plateau and the lava floods of India, known as the Deccan Traps or those in the Pacific Ocean north of the Solomon Islands called the Ontong Java Plateau It is insufficient to base science on "well-observed fact" as D H proposed in the 6 th post of this thread. If we accept that notion some might be pre-disposed to accept the Ptolemaic geo-centric view of the universe - for what is more obvious than the sun crossing the sky? (& please swansont - don't quote that out of context - context matters) Science (as does physics) relates to physical principle and mathematical verifications. I'm going to open a new thread soon, Examining the "physics" in geophysics (mountain building). A new thread will be necessary because the arguments against current (mountain building theory) follow the path (of the dissipation of compressive forces (stresses) though shear) gf

Newton's second law, f = ma (or f = m(the time rate of change of velocity) - or simply (f = m dv/dt) tells us with absolute clarity that only forces have the capacity to move the tectonic plates (or anything, for that matter). As it relates to this thread - magma can exert a force during expansion and phase change. Beyond that magma is dead as a prime mover. And adding heat will not change the physics - all it'll do is cause the magma to go to the next phase - vaporization. The earth sciences require a system of forces that are verifiably uniform world wide, that are unchanging through the ages, that are based on the principles of physics that we know to exist - and can be quantified mathematically. This system of forces must account for not only the movement of the tectonic plates, but for earthquake and mountain building, for the observed rise and fall of land masses. It must account for the existence of volcanoes, and hot springs, and the huge deposits of lava as found in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho in the United States known as the Columbia Plateau and the lava floods of India, known as the Deccan Traps or those in the Pacific Ocean north of the Solomon Islands called the Ontong Java Plateau It is insufficient to base science on "well-observed fact" as D H proposed in the 6 th post of this thread. If we accept that notion some might be pre-disposed to accept the Ptolemaic geo-centric view of the universe - for what is more obvious than the sun crossing the sky? (& please swansont - don't quote that out of context - context matters) Science (as does physics) relates to physical principle and mathematical verifications. I'm going to open a new thread soon, Examining the "physics" in geophysics (mountain building). A new thread will be necessary because the arguments against current (mountain building theory) follow the path (of the dissipation of compressive forces (stresses) though shear) gf

Mr Skeptic gf) Give me your folk's home phone number and I'll call and let ya know DJBruce gf) Good point - that's why I found it so surprising that D H would resort to that tactic P.S. No point in trying to close the door around D H's regional comments - the horse has already left the barn gf

D H) gf) You have a credibility problem D H - I'm from Michigan - I even said so in the opening page of this post - and that is where I taught college physics gf /

In the late 1960's five Saturn first stage engines (each producing 1.5 million pounds of thrust) were clustered together to launch the Apollo to the moon. I entered this extraordinary program fresh out of engineering school, and went on to teach college physics nights. Apollo taught all involved how fragile this earth really is - leading me to add an earth sciences section to my physics classes. The first semester was a disaster - because these were physics students, and they were quick to point out that the leading tenet of the earth sciences (tectonics) was in violation of every physical principle in the book. It was contrived - it was nonsense I restructured the earth sciences section with an aim to solve the problem by defining the forces that are actually in play that will be forthcoming / / \ As a matter of note we brought back every single astronaut we launched into space gf

There are two well defined layers that follow the surface contours. The first is the MOHO (or Mohorovicic discontinuity) the other is a plastic layer. The term was coined by Don L. Anderson, in "The Plastic Layer of the Earth's Mantle," Scientific American, July 1962, No 1, Pg. 52-9. The permanence (and extent) of these layers stand in testimony that magma does not intrude to move surface plates / / / / / / CAPTION: the famous Moho seismic discontinuity. Named after a Yugoslav seismologist who discovered it in 1909, the Mohorovicic Discontinuity, which reflects the different densities of the crust and the mantle, normally occurs at a depth of 35 km beneath the continents and about 10 km beneath the oceans. But here you can literally stand with one foot on the gabbro of the ocean crust and the other on the peridotite of the ocean mantle. It is because of this unusual sequence of rocks and other aspects of Gros Morne's geology and landscape that in 1988 Gros Morne was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site gf /

Bignose gf) Yes you can - and you have too - the tectonic plates move in a regular pattern - but the (so called thermal engine) is chaotic. Earthquake is said to be from brittle fracture of cold rock followed by a sliding fault If the earth is warmed from the core upward - the definition of earthquake wouldn't work. We cannot dismiss what must be true - just to satisfy a poorly structured (thermal engine) geophysical tenet gf

Bignose gf) You are in the wrong section of the physics book. You'll find the temperature of pots of water in the section on heat transfer. And with an earth with a polar radius of 3949 miles I think it could care less if you can predict which molecules will vaporize into steam Thermal processes (by virtue of the inability to define motion, velocity of any stream or section, or viscosity at any point within the system) is chaotic There are over 1,000,000 earthquakes a year - they do not originate in elevated temperature environments - so you got two choices - forget nuclear cores (core meaning at the center of the earth) or earthquake Ya can't have both gf /

Thermal processes are chaotic - it is impossible to predict the path of movement One of the major tenets advanced by geophysics is that flowing magma propels the plates and causes oceanic plate separation at the mid-ocean ridges. But magma (by definition - being molten, fully expanded - having gone through phase change) has no means, in itself, to move an inch. It is incapable of performing work (force through a distance), except in the formation stage when it is expanding and going through phase change. Magma, by all definition, is a dead by-product of the heat that formed it. Our young are entering the stages of advanced education with the notion of magma propelling plates firmly set in their minds. One might ask further -how it is that the physical interlocks that exist at plate boundaries (and the friction from movement) - never enter the equation?

Thermal processes are chaotic - and if we were to believe you (Moontanman) or the author of that material we'd have to generate another theory for the origin of earthquake which at the moment follows the line of brittle fracture and sliding faults We'd have to give scientific reason for the plates to move in uniform fashion for millions of years (knowing again that thermal processes are chaotic) We cannot have conditions in the asthenosphere wherein rock becomes ductile and moving at rates of deformation measured in cm/yr - and have earthquake too Your Internet material is inconsistent with other & better formulated theories including the temperatures that magma forms: 650 C (1202 F) & 1200 C (2192 F) Best IMO we stop trying to defend a thermal regime that has no merit except in the say so gf

Your meters IMO should have melted when you stated :: You are also the only one to have suggested that magma originates in the core :: Folk here are talking about Heat from the core not magma - I fail to see why you are distorting what is being said or suggesting that it is proper to mis-use scientific terms or quote out of context gf /

Swansont is giving a new definition for the core of the earth saying that the word core as used on this science forum means the interior of the earth - and not the core of the earth Swansont gf) This leaves us in wonderment as Swansont also says it is proper and (perhaps expected) that we quote out of context If we are at liberty to re-define technical terms to suit ourselves and if we are at liberty to quote out of context - than we are entering a state of anarchy and have dispensed with science gf /

According to the folk on this science forum - the core is a nuclear heat generator (or call it what you will) this heat (in turn) causes the magmas near the surface to maintain a semi-liquid state (or low viscus state) and this magma propels the surface tectonic plates (by a means uncertain) Magmas (depending on composition, and according to Tulane University) range between 650 C (1202 F) & 1200 C (2192 F) According to this science forum - the temperature gradient measures from the core to the near surface magmas. It follows (therefrom) that earthquake cannot be the result of brittle fracture and sliding faults as the temperature gradient (core to surface) forbids that scenario Tulane University, on the other-hand says this about that :: http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/volcan&magma.htm gf