It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

tectonics - it's time we remove this nonsense from our schools

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc


This was finally demonstrated by the Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami as shown here:

Sumatran quake sped up Earth's rotation


ah yes a web site that requires payment before you view anything. what kind of cut do you get?

still once again no verifiable source for your rants.




posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Aelita go google for "scientific notation" - you are writing about something you have absolutely NO knowledge of.

bigx01 sorry about that link - being as it's associated with the journal nature it's what I should have expected.

But it did serve the purpose of showing that the journals do not disagree - here is a link to the story. Fifth para down for the change of time.

Geophysics of the Asian tsunami

bc
.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
not sure if anyone is intrested but I gather this is the same person on a different forum discussing the same thing from august last year.

www.fantasticforum.com...

He got some pictures and stuff not read it yet but guessing it explaining the theory and everything



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
except this goes against everything you say about plate tectonics and the earth's rotation and "earth lightning"



At nearly 0800 local time on 26 December, a titanic shift of tectonic plates triggered an immense magnitude 9.0 earthquake in the Indian Ocean, 250 kilometres from the west coast of Sumatra, Indonesia.


confirms plate tectonics



Thirty kilometres beneath the ocean floor, a 1200-kilometre-stretch of the Indian plate slipped 20 metres beneath the Burma plate. This motion suddenly thrust the seafloor up by several metres, shaking the entire 5-kilometre-deep water column above the fault line.


confirms subduction of plates



The energy released by the earthquake was so great that it even altered the rotation and tilt of the planet. The sudden shift of mass towards the Earth's centre sped up the Earth's rotation by a few microseconds and increased the tilt of its rotational axis by 2.5 centimetres.


confirms that the consevation of angular momentem is what causesed the earth to rotate a little faster as, like when a figure skater brings their arms in, the sudden shift of towards the earths center sped up the rotation.


Source: Asian Tsunami Disaster: Instant Expert

you have just proven everything you have been ranting is false.

there is nothing in there that provides backup for what you have been saying and infact conradicts everything



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
my LAST question...
Since you cant answer the questions.

So are you selling a book, that has all these explanations?
Something i can buy somewhere?
where?



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   
not selling books .. They are sold out. You asked if it was published and I answered your question.

If you'd bother to read what I post we'd get somewhere. If you can't understand it than ask.

If you are not interested than we shouldn't continue.

But keep in mind we keep getting comments from people who cannot understand scientic notation -

Things kinna lose continuity when someone like that doesn't bother to think about they write!

bc
.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by minority2000uk
not sure if anyone is intrested but I gather this is the same person on a different forum discussing the same thing from august last year.

www.fantasticforum.com...

He got some pictures and stuff not read it yet but guessing it explaining the theory and everything


it is the same person.



from the above link

So if the Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, the orbital circle must be 186 million miles across


how does he explain that from march 21st to sept 21'st has 3 more days than from sept 21's to march 21'st.

if the orbit was circular the number of days would be the same but they aren't there must be some other explanation.

what could it be.

could it be that it's not circular but eliptical



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
beforebc, the fact you can start a discussion thread based on such absurd nonsense just shows how liberal the ATS policies are.

[edit on 27-4-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
[edit on 27-4-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
Aelita go google for "scientific notation" - you are writing about something you have absolutely NO knowledge of.


I have no need to Google this, as I have a PhD in nuclear physics, and am quite comfortable with the notion of estimating statistical and systematic errors.

I read the link containing (finally!) a brief description of your "theory".

Wow! It's even lamer than the lameness that I had expected. Check it out:


as you recall the Sun prevents the Earth from flying out in deep space with the moon


This is deep! However, you dig even deeper:


But there is still work to do.. Because the crust comes willingly enough, but the core and the mantle still want it their own way -snip- The core and mantle try to pull away - but can't while the crust (itself wanting to pull away) but being thin and pliable reacts like loose cargo on a ship, and bends ever so slightly toward the Sun


Holy guacamole! You explain celestial mecahnics with some kind of "volition" of the planets! The is seriously medieval
The core wants is its way, or highway. This is freaking hilarious
At least, thanks for a laugh.

Listen everybody - crust if moving because it has free will and determination. And so does the Sun. And it's time for a beer. Amen.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
not selling books .. They are sold out. You asked if it was published and I answered your question.

If you'd bother to read what I post we'd get somewhere. If you can't understand it than ask.

bc
.


I read what you posted, but then you said that your theory is far too complicated to explain...
So what am i supposed to understand?
that you have posted a rather unscientific theory?
that you have given zero proof for this theory, besides that it is "what makes the world go around".
that to understand this theory, I would have to read the book? (against T&C to promote authored books without admins permission)
that this book is sold out, so i cant do that either?

man, for someone who doesn't want to take the smallest step of answering questions to prove your theory, you sure do expect a lot of given understanding by us...

Gotta give to get, come on now...

Like i said,
present theorys work pretty good and match the situations theorized... they answer all the key questions...
You gotta mighty big hurdle to overcome, and you haven't taken the first step to your jump.

Now we have someone who says that in another forum, you postulate that the earths orbit of the sun is ROUND?
i really hope that wasn't you... or i fear that you have wasted all of our time...



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Attention ATS

Would some one on ATS with at least an 8th grade education PLEASE explain to our resident "PhD in nuclear physics" what scientific notion is!'

Look for Aelita's post who says I "am quite comfortable with the notion of estimating statistical and systematic errors."

Thanks ..



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
are we not also taking it in blind faith that he actually done the research and has the book and is not just someone who read it on a site and tried to pull it off as their own??

No disrespect meant but I couldnt find anything on a quick google on who made the theory and also the name of the person. Could been because i dont have time might have better look tomo once my honour project is handed in and I have slept..an all nighter tonight.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Just a reminder here ...

Please direct any and ALL contributions to the topic of discussion and NOT towards the credibility of other members.

I am not singling out ANY member in particular. Let's just keep the discussion focused on the TOPIC!

Thank you.


... and now back to the discussion:

tectonics - it's time we remove this nonsense from our schools

[edit on 4/27/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Am I the author of the RB-Effect?

The answer is Yes! And here are the principles that descibe the RB-Effect.

1.] The gravitational forces are experienced along the plane of the ecliptic.
2.] If left on it's own - earth would follow Newton's 1st Law: a body in motion will follow a straight line unless acted upon by an external force
3.] Solar gravity constantly changes that straight line motion into curilinear orbital motion.
4.] The earth is tilted at ~23.5 degrees, and rotates about that oblique angle relative to the ecliptic
5.] There are two weakened zones below the crust the "MOHO," and the "Plastic Zone?"
6.] They are not molten, nor capable of any type of action themselves, but they afford the crust a slight degree of freedom of motion.
7.] That freedom of motion allows the crust to bend toward the sun in daylight hours - but is supported by the inner mantle during night time hours.
8.] The RB-Effect is short for rotational bending - meaning that as the earth turns so is the crust caused to bend under the influence of solar gravity
9.] rotational bending is a natural consequence of bending while in rotation - an example is auto engine crankshafts (as anyone with a Hemi will know)
10.] rotational bending is defined in any machinest's handbook or on the Net
11.) We calculated the solar gravitational forces at each 100 miles of latitude (as measured off the ecliptic) NOT the equator.
12.] we used arbitrary thickness for the crust of 7, 37, 87, and 155 miles. We found the thickness had no effect in changing the forces. (more on that later)
13.] The forces at 100 miles of lat were of the magnitude of 2.38x10^21 pounds
14.) The resultant bending moments (moments are like a torque in a way) were 5.37x10^27 foot pounds
15.] this means that the cust is in a constant state of bending.
16.] It is these forces and bending moments that are causing crustal movements.

I'll stop here while hoping for questions - and PLEASE let them be half way intelligent!

thanks bc
.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
That is against T&C beforebc

so chill!

you cant insult others intellegence...
actually you can, but it usually serves to only insult your own.

As a matter of fact, most here, have shown a full high school to college science knowledge, except one

and picking on one bit of misunderstood notiation, is not serving your goal.
especially as the person who misunderstood it could be from a country where english is a second/third language

Lets get back to topic, please.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
once again it's amazing how you ignore measured and second source verified facts, when they don't fit your explanation.

yet you have failed to provide any source other than your own rants as facts



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
Am I the author of the RB-Effect?

The answer is Yes! And here are the principles that descibe the RB-Effect.

thanks bc
.


Well, so we have some answers...

OK, so let me amaze you...
i was taught most of that in High school...
they called it plate techtonics.

you only seem to add by taking away... (correct me if i misunderstand)
My teachers gave credit that orbital pressure, and orbital movement could add to the movement of the continents... but was a far less motive force than the effect these actions had on the INNER layers of the earth, that in turn could cause heat and friction, which in turn, causes these heat related movement of the plates (convection cells).



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Hello all.

I drew this cartoon to dramatize our orbital circumstance. I chose this format because it's easily understood!
.
.

.
bc



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Hello all,

This is new science - it is as different from tectonics .. as Aristotle and Ptolemy's geocentric (earth centered) model .. is from the modernistic heliocentric (sun centered) model

So google'ing (unless you find references to my work) won't get you anything. Likewise .. comments like he ignores my google.PhD inputs won't get you anything either.

Before venturing on this project 30 years ago - we read everything ever written on tectonics. So google won't bring any surprises that we haven't already read.

bc
.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join