studiot

You have references to this? In discussing the OP paper (the purpose of this thread) I note a psarsity of references to Newton and his input compared to that of Leibnitz and the continentals. This bias towards one or the other european originator is common in articles. It is also common to entirely fail to mention Seki.

Of course it does. Harald simply made a mistake. (though please don't ask me why). However he seems to have understood the idea of dimensional analysis since he says he got newtons per square metre instead of newtons for his force, and realised something was up the swannee. This much is good. Remember that acceleration is rate of change of velocity ie rate of change of metres per second or metres per second per second or M0L1T-2 and force is defined by Newtons second law as mass x acceleration which has dimensions M1 x M0L1T-2 = MLT-2 I agree, but sadly that is no longer the case. My guess is that Harald hails from Norway so I don't know their system by I haven't heard it is in advance of the UK's. The bottom line is that too much class time is devoted to astrophysics and cosmology, which are currently more sexy, and not enough to the basics, IMHO.

That is a very good question +1 Inertial frames and inertia are not on the A level syllabus (or similar), which Harald has probably just started. Here is all a standard text says about Newton's law of gravitation and big G v little g. Note it simple says Newton proposed the inverse square law (which is true he did working from Kepler's observed data). This is substantially less than used to be on the syllabus about this. However I think part of the confusion arises from the modern habit/mania of renaming everything to something unintuitive. So the acceleration due to gravity, g has become The gravitational field strength. I have highlighted the important implications at the top of the third page. Note the apparantly different units.

Thank you for replying at last. Your clarification of ductile action is quite a reasonable description. Traditionally ductile action is identified with 'necking' of specimens or real object subject to stress, and this can be seen particularly well in your picture, which is like the simple uniaxial tensile test. However you have not gone into the detail of the subject where not only the stress regime needs to be considered but also the loading regime that brings about that stress. This is important because your rotation proposal for Kamchatka is not simple uniaxial stress. It would need to be more like a giant screw dislocation. You would need to consider the Burgers vector. https://www.google.com/search?q=burgers+vector+in+screw+dislocation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b You don't seem interested in my references Why is this? They all point to material that is missing from your presentation. For instance the book I referred to contains a treatment of the all important conditions for what is known as the brittle-ductile transition for rock materials. Higher pressures and highter temperatures favour ductility in rocks, although the exact numbers vary from rock to rock. You have not explored this aspect and it is very important. As far as I can see you have simply claimed that a lenticular object (Kamchatka) can be fitted or aligned to a concave or embayed coastline, using paln views at some scale and projection. I am sure that I could fit it to many such bays around the world, from the Hudson Bay, the Great Australian Bight, The Bay of Biscay, the Gulf of Siam, The Culf of Mexico etc etc. Shape alone is not enough. You need to show that the rocks match. And match to depth. The Sea of Okhotsk has volcanic / intrusive activity around most of its margins. But what of the underlying rocks? And did the intrusions match in time? For instance there are a series of (now) low mountain ranges in East Scotland, between Edinburgh and Dundee, that are of igneous orign but the igneous activity was episodic over several tens of million years and overlies the surrounding Devonian sedimentary regime. Compare the ages of the Pentlands, Ochils, Sidlaws. Subsequently major rocks were laid down around the Firth of Forth in the Carboniferous period. Such relative dating should be performed and offered on your 'match points' . That is why I put up the geological data I have on Kamchatka. Obviously I have access to better data from Scotland.

Agreed 100% Yes all agreed and well put, from a professional in the field. +1

Compared to the usual rambling rants against the establisment this paper was clean and tight, with good references. All in all a worthwhile addition to the knowledgebase on this subject and a reminder that no subject is static and that fashions come and go, even in Mathematics. A pleasure to read, I did not know there was/is a movement to re-examine the history of this subject in the light of modern thinking and I can personally vouchsafe the value and veracity of your opening sentence in most disciplines. Nor it seems did wtf. My library goes back to the earlier period you speak of , so I will be comparing some of the texts from that time So welcome and +1 for introducing an interesting subject.

Read Harald's personal introduction. So how would you explain it at that level? Would inertial or any frames be on your syllabus?

Since you are unable or unwilling to expand point (1) on your list, can we assume you have abandoned this claim about Kamchatka and move on to proposal number (2) ? So please explain exactly what you mean by ductile fracture ? Please note this is a serious question, despite your insulting comments towards conventional geoscientists imputing that ductility is not considered. Here is a short extract from the chapter on ductility in a more technical standard work. Structural Geology Hobbs, Means, and Williams (1976)

+1 Sensei for a first class example. Di you know that the first recorded example in history was given by Aristotle? As regards intelligence in general and intelligent design in particular I hope Doug is not intended to introduce these red heerings from another ocean. However he has some potentially worthwhile ideas well worth the effort of looking into. Standard plate tectonics leaves many unanswered questions. Here is some very recent work on plumes.

I thought you wanted an answer to this. John Cuthber's answer included nearly the full complexity. Mine started more simply, leading to the all important difference between melting of a pure substance and a mixture. The all important difference is that for a pure substance, the chemical composition does not change on melting, but for a mixture it does change. Obviously I can stop wasting my time.

All heat flow is unidirectional. That is the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics. I can't see how my description can be interpreted as a column? Did you understand my calculations, they were only an engineer's 'ballpark' type?

I am sorry, I understood your original words to mean that you were using actually measure distances on your diagrams, not some values you have adjusted by means not disclosed. As regards the language I would prefer the words convexity and concavity to be used in preference to simply cavity. Cavity on its own has 3 dimensionsal implications and could easily be misunderstood. I didn't say there was a need. I said offered an alternative method of achieving the same results. Any proper scientific analysis must be able to discount these scientifically, not with a contemptuous wave of the hand. Again your words appear to hide any adjustments you may have made to the diagrams. One thing in particular strikes me. I asked you about conformal (shape preserving) projections of your maps . You did not answer this., however you quote ESRI so here are their published thought on the subject of confomal projections. I suggest you are presenting too much material at once and skimming over far too quickly, jumping about the globe and from subject to subject. Each of these deserves proper detailed consideration in its own right. I note also that you are only looking at surface features and also not including regional geological history. Both of these need to be included, but geological data for Kamchatka is sparse to say the least. Here is some showing the relationship to the surrounding geology and earth movement history. So if you want to have a discussion about Kamchatka, let's have a proper rational one, or I can stop wasting my time.

Note when using these equations that Newton's formula involving big G is only part of the story. It implies that that two bodies cannot be in mechanical equilibrium (Think about it) So there must be other forces acting in any real universe system to allow stable solar systems, orbits and so on. The acceleration due to gravity starts with the assumption that the mass of the Earth is so large compared to a rocket or whatever that all the activity can be attributed to the rocket and the Earth stays still.

No problem this is simple to resolve. :) There are two gravitational constants. The one which appears in Newton's Law of Gravity, which you started with, is given the symbol 'big G' (as you did) and has a value 6.674×10−11 N. kg. m2 This is called the Universal Gravitational Constant. Note the units. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant The second one is called the acceleration due to gravity and is independent of mass. It is given the symbol 'ittle g' This is the one you have used the value of in your working. You would nomally use this in kinematic equations such as v = u + at with the acceleration = 9.81 metres per second2 Does this help?

First you need to understand what is meant by melting point. A true solid is a pure substance with a definite chemical composition and a definite (crystalline) structure. Such a substance has a definite single temperature melting point. A substance which does not have a definite chemical composition and/or no crystalline structure will exhibit a melting temperature range. It is common in junior school to compare the cooling curves or softening/melting curves for a wax or resin and a pure liquid/solid such as /water ice to plot this difference. Have you done this experiment?

This author has been 'developing' his unusual views for more than a decade. Here is a 2015 reference. http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/author-claims-solon-invented-sinking-of-atlantis-due-to-dogmatic-views-of-geography A more balanced approach to the Atlantis Myth is found in the book Supercontinent by Ted Nield As regards the material presented in the OP Look at the drawn shape of Kamchatka. To map which projection isn't stated so we don't know if it is a shape preserving one or not, but it reminds me of a French Curve, as used by draftsmen. And any user will know that these are designed so you can wiggle one part of the device to 'fit' almost anything. So it is not suprising that a gently curving convex shape will 'fit' another gently curving concave one. Secondly the OP then states that the Asian cost has to be stretched to fit! Wow. There is plenty of evidence for subduction to be found, but it is not the whole story and indeed modern geologists are delving into This is not to say that plate techtonics is not without it mysteries, eg the well studied and documented New Madrid earthquakes in the centre of plates. The theory is far from fully developed and will undoubtedly undergo significant further revision as better evidence emerges. Here is a quote from a more recent book that I have reviewed elsewhere at SF. The New Scientist "This is Planet Earth" But these words were written by senior geologists and geophysicists in their fields and also in proper collaborative and peer reviewed scientific papers, eg the Nicky White 2011 Scottish Study by the University of Cambridge.

It may be that anne242 would like to understand what is going on and is looking for explanation. But she didn't say, one way or the other.

I am still waiting for an answer to my question about your introduction of gravity and the symbol G. Please reply in accordance with the rules here.

This is complete and utter rubbish. There are and can be no gravitational forces acting when there is only one mass. That is axiomatic. I ask again , what is G and where does it come from? Further this whole presentation is speculative at best.

These are a few of the unsupportable claims you make to base your proposal on. Yes zero is a unique number. But then every other number is also unique. For instance there is only one number 100. It is true that every number has properties, and that includes zero. Zero, for instance is bounded. But zero does indeed share the multiplicative property of all other numbers. This is one of the most fundamental axioms.

Welcome to Science Forums. I'm sorry I am unclear as to what exactly you wanted to discuss. You start with a listing of something but only get as far a number (1) on your list, which carries your own claim, but no question is asked. Then you add additional material that appears to be a reference to something elsewhere without furthering your list or explanation. So please clearly state what you would like this thread to discuss. When you do this please identify definitions that you wish to use and distinguish them from those used elsewhere. For example please state your definition of a finite number as that would save a great deal of argument at cross purposes.

Don't you find that conversation, when there's only one participant is rather like gravity when there's only one mass ? :)

You have included G in your expression. What does this mean? Edit Gosh, you have been watching this for 15 minutes without reply. I am simply asking you to identify all the symbols in your expressions. Why is that so difficult?

Well for a start you require (two or more) masses to apply newton's law of gravity. You only have one. Do you realise the in the case of "The particle in a box", you not only have a particle you also have a potential field in that box ?

2) Nor was I, I was responding to Moon's useful input. 1) This is all words, in particular what do you mean by "local ground temperatures" and "heat is not replenished quickly enough" So here are some proper engineering calculations. I have taken my figures for calculation from a Leeds University study and appended their PDF. I am sorry I have lost the web reference so my thanks if anyone can find it. This study is interesting in that it was primarily aimed at utilising excavations for piling. The technique could also be used to cool the building, but as the following calculations show, longer term heat storage (months) is difficult because the heat would dissipate into the surrounds in a shorter time scale. So using the following symbols A = area in square metres Q = power flow in watts per square metre L = distance in metres K = Soil thermal conductivity or heat transfer coefficient in watts per metre-degree. [math]\theta [/math] = temperature in degrees C So the controlling equation of heat flow is equation 1 in the Leeds article [math]K = \frac{Q}{A}*\frac{L}{\theta }[/math] or rearranging [math]\theta = \frac{Q}{{KA}}L[/math] Differentiate with respect to distance give the temperature gradient in degrees per metre. [math]\frac{{d\theta }}{{dL}} = \frac{Q}{{KA}}[/math] Rearranging [math]Q = KA\frac{{d\theta }}{{dL}}[/math] Now let us put some numbers into this. I was quoted that I needed 100 metres of buried pipe for a GS heat pump so taking this figure, and considering 3 sides of a box around the pipe 1 metre from the pipe. That is considering the faces 1 metre below and to each side of the box, but not the top since that is in contact with the upper soil, which we are discounting, we find that the box has sides 2 metres so the face area is 3 *2*100 = 600 square metres. Or A = 600. Taking an average values of 3 Watts/metre-degree for K from the Leeds table and limiting the temperature gradient to 2oC per metre thus making the pipe 2oC colder than the interface areas we find that [math]Q = KA\frac{{d\theta }}{{dL}} = 3*600*2 = 3600[/math] watts So with minimal temperature drop this system can sustain nearly 4 kilowatts continuous transfer in or out of the soil. Soil Properties.pdf Soil Properties.pdf