studiot

Glad it worked out well. A small point to help we call them turns not spires. Spires are pointy roofs, usually on top of towers of cathedrals and university buildings.

[aside] You really find Newton's Laws circular? In modern terms N1 Defines motion and its relation to coordinate systems of space and time and introduces, but does not define an antity called Force. N2 Defines a force in terms of those cooordinate sytems and introduces a constant of proposrtionality called Mass. N3 Defines Mass. [/aside] I was careful in my response to the OP to avoid circularity. I am still waiting for his reply to tell us the exact point he wishes to discuss out of a long and rambling opening post.

If the issues of fake definitions, the circular nature of the time-flow argument, the focus of the thought experiment or the expansion and energy requirements of the universe are not going to be observed, then nothing else I say is ever going to convince you otherwise. I am even more confused than ever by this response. It is certainly not an answer to the question I asked, which therefore still stands. Note that others have also found it difficult to spot the kernel of your point, indeed their points of response to yours have already been split off elsewhere.

Yes I am still looking at that. Can you clarify a point for me please. It looks to me as though you are proposing folding with a vertical or near vertical hinge axis. This would account for the two contra rotating sections indicated, the reotation being about a common centre. Have I understood this proposal correctly? So you are proposing two expansions, the second one 40MYA - Again have I understood this correctly. When was the first one proposed to have occurred? No and No. Subduction does not occur because anything sinks into the mantle. Sinking is just not possible, although doubtless many have used this word carelessly. Here is some data from the US GS which demonstrates why this is. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Geophys/earthstruct.html As an aside, the realisation by geologists that sinking of crustal material into the mantle by itself, is just not possible dispelled a whole category of 'sunken continent' theories that were popular (for hundreds if not thousands of years) up to the early 20th century. In the same vein, the theory of continental drift which peaked in the mid 20th century, had to be abandoned for a variety of reasons, some big, some smaller but they all stacked up against CD. Plate tectonics itself has not been immune from these questions and has changed quite radically since its inception, not least with the most modern understanding of the role played by water within the rocks. Things (both geological process and our theories about them) move slowly in Geology but the subject is a shining example of the ongoing scientific method testing out proposals and weeding out those which cannot be supported by the preponderance of observations, starting right at the beginning with uniformitarianism, some parts of which we still retain today. So it has been with Earth expansion, both expansion in past geological history, and subsequently. As Strange points out (if a little stridently), any proposal needs to be backed up by a viable (consistent with the known laws of Physics) mechanism, and also testable since it may not violate Physics laws but may just not be what is going on. Expansion in modern times (say from 500MYA) would necessitate a decrease in overall density, since the time the Earth stopped accreting appreciably. In turn this would affect gravity and other astronomical bodies. Observations to check both of these effects has yielded results that has ruled out expansion (and by the way earlier shrinking Earth theories - yes there have been these as well) I have many older books and papers which have had their conclusions superceeded or even overturned in the light of later observations. Yet theya re worth retaining because they also contain much valuable data for those able to discern the sheep from the goats. I may yet obtain your work, especially if it is the source of some of your diagrams posted here, since it seems to contain much of cartographic interest. Which brings us back to the beginning of this post and the fold hinge.

But your diagram does not reflect this state of affairs. All the blocks (red, blue and yellow) are shown sitting on the same base. Talking of that base, what is it made of in your theory? Is it more or less dense than continental crust? Is it more or less dense than oceanic crust? Whatever, I disagree that blocks of solid Earth material will fold downwards into even more dense supporting solid material, rather than folding upwards into thin air. Where do these compressive forces come from in an expanding Earth? You now claim there are bursts of expansion. Can you date these?

NO. You can use the pattern changes in the B-Z chemical reaction as a timing device. What does this have to do with acceleration?

Mordred has already told you in theoriginal thread that It is also a common fallacy to think that motion controls time. They are linked but separate. Don't forget that motion is relative and that regularity is different for atoms in the Sun and on Earth and the motion of the Sun and Alpha Centauri are different and we say that in the perturbation or change of this regularity. It is also wrong to think that this regularity is simple and discrete, like the 'ticking of a clock'. Time can be measured by a device using a process that is regualr on average, eg radioactivity. Nor need the regularity be linear (that is each tick is the same). Each extractable 'tick' of a capacitor discharge clock follows a decreasing exponential, as does a radioactivity based averaging clock.

Interestingly the first measuring devices for time were (not very) linear devices, not cyclic devices as modern clocks are. But the first devices for measuring distance were not linear devices like rulers or tapes, they were cyclic devices - measuring wheels.

Then surely time fits the description of a dimension, since it then a label for a coordinate axis.

Could you please give a two line summary of what we are supposed to be discussing? I would agree that clocks do not measure time (directly). They measure seconds (or whatever) and seconds are a unit of several different quantities, just as other quantities such as inches or volts are units of more than one quantity. You can for instance measure height or height difference or total length or extension in inches. Or you can measure voltage drop in an electric circuit or electromotive force in volts. Similarly with time you can measure time difference or elapsed time or lifetime in seconds, but never time itself. For some reason we (well some of us) bother to make the distinction, but not for time. Perhaps this is a source of much confusion. I would have thought that at least some Physicists would define time as the reciprocal of frequency, as this is connected to the use in clocks.

This is definitely not the first time I have made this ‘startling’ claim: Sure it's not bacon, but can you make too many cheese references? And there is no contradiction. If the continents were made of strictly cheese, we would only see arcing coastlines with outstretched wisps of cheesy mass just like the fracture and torn cheese on the pizza. We would also see a welcome drop in the price of cheese. Continental crust has both ductile and brittle features. It has a complex and varied structure as seen in your sedimentary/igneous rock image. You can look at the complex pattern of mixed rock in your image and virtually predict where fractures would occur if tensile stress were applied to the region. Consider a sheet of clay and stone. If we were to break the sheet apart, the fractures would occur between the rocks, but it would not be surprising to see instances where softer clay extends out between the two halves. Hence, Kamchatka and the aligning coastal point, which exhibits evidence of a ductile extension in the form of thinning, arcing, and internal ductile voids. I apologise I had forgotten that part of that post as I had put aside discussion of failure mechanics until later. Strictly speaking your cheese strips have not fractured since load bearing connections still remain. They have indeed failed by most criteria: failure is a much wider term that includes the sort of response to load you require (ductile) without complete cleavage or breakage. I also have to admit that I missed the significance of the following post when I read it. Excellent point. In Maps, Myths & Paradigms that is exactly my claim. I feel that initially explaining it relative to Kamchatka is far easier to grasp. Here is an image from the book depicting the rotation of the Asian continent to the west while downward-facing splinter fractures remain anchored to the Pacific Plate. I have been taking your proposals seriously, for reasons outlined at the end of this post, and have been looking into possible rotations of Kamchatka. I have already asked for the location of the 'hinge centre', without reply. So whether you consider Kamchatka or Asia to have rotated, please identify your proposed centre of rotation by posting the latitude and longitude of this centre. I ask this because, as I already noted more generally, I cannot find an arc of rotation allowing Kamchakata (or Asia) to move from your claimed original alignment to the present day one. The only path I can find involves substantial lateral movement and enormous distortion of the eastern end of Siberia from longitude 130oE to 170oE - A huge area, many times that of Kamchatka itself. In truth it is all very well showing curvy arrows along a proposed path, but these are just wishful thinking without proper identification of their centre. Talking of these curvy arrows as shown in your latest post So, if Saudi Arabia rotated away from Pakistan, why Pakistan is not one of the World's greatest Oil producing nations? Could it be because the rocks in SA are quiite different from those in Pakistan (They are) , despite your apparent claim they were once welded together? Back to Kamchatka. If, as you suggest, Kamchatka is actually a bit of Asia, stuck to the pacific plate, Why is there a bloody great ocean trench between Kamchatka and the pacific plate? Can you explain the difference in rock type (and age) between the western side of Kamchatka and the rocks on the other side of the Sea of Okhotsk? The western edge of Kamchatka (where your map shows the end 'ka' of Kamchatka is clastic (sedimentary). The opposing shore is igneous metamorphic. I don't know how much you know about the history of tectonics as applied to geology, but the internet is not the best place to look. Continental drift was first proposed in a publication in 1855 by Snider. Taylor was next in 1908 (pamphlet) and paper 1910. Wegener's important paper came along in 1915. These were largely due to 'map fits' like yours. Holmes and Carey promoted the continental drift idea and various models both mathematical and physical were made. and the argument between the expansionist and contractionists continuing the the 19th century view was played out. This one by Carey might interest you. https://eprints.utas.edu.au/13965/1/1955_Carey_Orocline_Concept_Geotectonics_Pt1.pdf Carey proposed a full blown mathematical theory of an expanding Earth to account for continental drift. In the half century to 1965 proper experimental eveidence bagan to accumulate, I'm sure you must have read some of this as it is the popular story of how plate tectonics grew out of these hypotheses. Evidence such as A) Direct measurement of seafloor spreading today B) Magnetic alignment data C) Direct satellite measurement D) Accumulation and matching of fossilised coastline evidence, with retro tidal predictions and the distance to Moon, coupled with modern monitoring of that distance. E) Modern dating methods. Plate tectonics is not without its difficulties for instance things you have not mentioned. 1) The iberian peninsula seriously does not fit in the cross atlantic alignment of continental profiles, without rotation. 2) Most of the african plate has a spreading ridge either side of it. So any theory must explain how both the Atlantic and Indian oceans are moving towards Africa, but in opposite directions. Yes more or less. So your bete noir - subduction. Here is the killer question. If this is true where is it? (That is where is all this oceanic crust?) The age of continental crust is measured in thousands of millions of years, the oldes being around 4,000 million years old. But, apart from odd fragments, most of the oceanic crust in the world is less than 200 million years old - the oldest known is only about 400 million years old. So without subduction, Where has all the older oceanic crust that formed during the first 4,000 million years of the the Earth's history gone?

Why would there be a shockwave ? These only occur under certain very specific conditions.

3 grams doesn't sound like much, are you sure? From the picture I rather expected something approaching 10. What about the volume? Possibly a local pharmacist shop might have a suitable measuring cylinder they could help you with.

It's called a hyl. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram-force

And just how much of a glass block is empty space both between and within the atoms?

Even when the only conditions they offer are non vacuum?

I will let Strange answer why he did not say the path was curved (or straight). This thread is about the speed of light. If you meant particular conditions, you should specify them and you did not.

Many elements appear in several forms, known as isotopes. Isotopes of the same element have the same number of protons and therefore the same atomic number. But they have different numbers of neutrons, so different atomic weights. Often some of these isotopes are radioactive and this includes isotopes of common elements like carbon (14C). All the isotopes share most of the chemical properties of the basic (most common) version of the element. You need to understand this before your question can be answered.

That is a good question to ask. You don't know so you ask. +1 This is not so good since you cannot draw the inference that because you don't know how we measure the speed of light somewhere, it can't be done. Far better to stick to your first scheme and ask. :) Yes the velocity of light might be different somewhere else as the local density of matter might be different. It is certainly (and measurably have you heard of a Kerr cell?) different inside a glass block on Earth. Note that the universal constant you refer to is not "The local speed of light"; it is "the speed of light in vacuo." The point is that we have good theoretical reasons to think that this is a universal constant we dub 'c'.

Yes indeed. +1 How many times must this request be repeated? To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time you have made this startling claim. This immediately contradicts you much referred to cheese example. I think so too, but it is your hypothesis so it is up to you to offer this analysis. I have supplied the necessary beginning backgorund. If there is a valley, it can only lie between two or more (chains of) hills or mountains. The adjacent ranges are igneous in origin. The internet shows areas of pillow lava, characteristic of submarine eruption. If you are saying that this valley matches was once an extension of a valley elsewhere these hills must have been preexisting elsewhere. Which means the eruptions must have been elsewhere. But these ranges are still active volcanically. So where does the new source of volcanic activity come from, since you claim that Kamchatka has moved away from being over the old ones? Once again I have asked this before and you have ignored the question.

I should have noted that the Cherts are a sedimentary rocks and some can look like the OP. It is not rounded enough to be a water tumbled pebble of say agate or jasper, as found on beaches. I am not sure but I think I can see remnents of a typical obsidian conchoidal fracture in the centre of the OP picture, so the specimen could be a red obsidian, although some forms of chert (as flint) exhibit this fracture mode. It is also a bit large and pure to be a red feldspar, which is another possibility. Density and microstructure will tell the difference without destructive testing.

Doesn't look sedimentary to me. Looks a bit glassy perhaps a bit 'soapy'. So red chert is a good suggestion. How does it appear if held up to the light? Can you see any fine particles, especially through a magnifying glass? Can you scratch it with glass, a steel nail or knife ? Are you in a position to estimate density? Weigh the piece and drop it into water in a graduated vessel an measure the water volume rise. Divide the weight by the volume (preferably report both) Is it magnetic (does it affect a compass needle) ?

Yes, multiply by 1 (why the minus signs?) Now 1 equals [math]1 = \frac{{\left( {1 + i} \right)}}{{\left( {1 + i} \right)}}[/math] So we have [math]\frac{{\left( {1 + i} \right)}}{{\left( {1 - i} \right)}}*\frac{{\left( {1 + i} \right)}}{{\left( {1 + i} \right)}} = \frac{{\left( {1 + 2i + {i^2}} \right)}}{{{{\left( 1 \right)}^2} - {{\left( i \right)}^2}}} = \frac{{2i}}{2} = i[/math] Since the bottom then becomes the difference of two squares. I think this thread is now old enough that the OP has lost interest.

There are several different conservation laws relating to conservation of energy. They are different because they deal with different situations. The First Law is only one of them and it actually asserts something quite different from what you have written, since it refers to energy transfer across a system boundary. Just to emphasise the point made by Sensei. Energy transfer has nothing to do with attraction between positive and negative. That again is an entirely different part of Physics.

Are you sure? Probability is a funny beast. You were also interested in the thread about quantum interpretations, and the important word is interpretation. Interpretation of probability. There are three types or interpretations of mathematical probability -- all different. 1) First we can assert that a probability of 1 means that event A has always happened and always will happen. 2) Second we can observe that event A has always happened but this cannot tell us what will happen next time. An example of this would be the President of the United States has always been a man. So what is the probability that the next President will be a woman? 3) Third we can observe that event A has never happened, leading to two further interpretations. 'A' may not have happened because no trial has ever been made, but we have no reason to discount A, that is assign a probability of zero to it. So we assign our best guess. Yes (informed) guess. I might, for example, confidently assign the probability zero to the probability of Red Rum winning the 2019 Grand National. An even more suprising result is the issue of how many trials are required for event A to happen if its probability is les than 1. Suppose I want define event A as as the number of cars that I must observe passing my drive before I spot a pink one. That is the number of cars up to and including the first pink one. I hope you agree that there are not many pink cars on the road so its probability will be low. But however low this probability is the most likely number of cars to see the pink one is 1 (the first car). The probability diminishes with each succesive number That is the probability of it being the first is greater than the probability of it being the second is greater than the probability of it being the third and so on. This suprising result demonstrates why it is best to be guided by the mathematics and not rely on common sense and intuition. You have shown some good insights in your posts, but also some wildly wron ideas Common sense and intuition can lead you far astray.