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

Scientific notation (excluding the units)

Avogadro's number = 6.0221415 × 10^23 or 6.0221415E23

Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10^34 or 6.626068 × 10E34

electric constant 8.854187817 x10^-12 or 8.854187817E-12

Newtonian constant of gravitation 6.7087x10^-39 or 6.7087E-39

Speed of light in a vacuum 2.99792458x10^8 or 6.7087E-39

Chernobyl here we come!

bc
.



[edit on 27-4-2006 by beforebc]

[edit on 28-4-2006 by beforebc]

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello all.

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

you chose that format b/c you think everyone compared you is feeble minded.

Originally posted by beforebc


Speed of light in a vacuum 2.99792458x10^8 or 6.7087E-39

i assume you made a typo. and that's meters per second since you give no reference to what the base units are

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.

sorry about the doubt but had me wondering as their was little info on it.....

You sure this book is out of print it must be available in libraries...even uni library just wondering as wouldnt mind a read of it....even if it is well out of my expertise area but hell got to learn it all some where

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

Nice diagram

Do you mind addressing the points I brought up here. I hope they arn't too primitive and beneath you. You seem to have ignored them so far...

[edit on 28-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Do you mind addressing the points I brought up here

the guy wont answer any of the points you brought up.

he has yet to respond to any of the hard facts i have posted since they don't fit his claims and not to mention the fact that he posted a link which contradicts all he claims to be true.




[edit on 28-4-2006 by bigx01]

[edit on 28-4-2006 by bigx01]

But I don't even really know much about it? I only brought up primary school stuff... Why avoid them?
I am particularly interested in his explanation of continental drift though...

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello all,

tectonics: .. Why do we allow them to teach this (drifting continents) nonsense in our schools?

Hi Jim, welcome to ATS

I'd missed this thread until now ..... but is seems to be going fine so I'll just sit back and watch. Unless I feel really compelled to intercede on behalf of my geophysical colleagues

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

Edit: Oops, sorry...

[edit on 28-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

[edit on 28-4-2006 by Essan]

Originally posted by bigx01
he has yet to respond to any of the hard facts i have posted since they don't fit his claims and not to mention the fact that he posted a link which contradicts all he claims to be true.

Don't take it personally, he always does that

(Yes, I've met up with 'beforebc' on a number of forums before)

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello Nygdan and all,

bc here] Convection is a means of heat [transfer] NOT a means of delivering a force!

And yet, boil water roils.

is attached to 3000 miles of ocean basin!

The continental crust isn't attached to ocean basic. The oceanic slabs sink into the mantel when they meet up with continental crust.

As for (up-flowing magma) melting the oceanic crust, thining it, and weaking it .. that is ignoring the tremendous cooling capability of 1000 feet of over-laying ocean water!

And yet, there is still hot molten crust at the ridges that is thinner than the rest, and made up of a series of extensional faults.

The truth is that all the geo-physical phenomenon that you've been addressing are caused by the solar gravitational forces that keep us in solar orbit!

Solar gravitational forces are making ophiolites and accretionarry wedges????

so along came Wagoner's drifting continents, and the Darwin people grabbed at it and presented it to the public

Thats actually incorrect. Wegener contintental drift hypothesis was rejected by the researchers at the time, because it lacked a driving mechanism. It wasn't until people understood convection within the mantle, and also made other observation, that it became widely supported. Darwin's theory had long since been accepted, since the evidence so strongly supports it.

how can it raise a mountain range where any thousand foot layer shows the same age?

I fail to see the issue here. Could you explain in more detail?

Also, speaking of the himalays, please explain why mountain belts are composed of heavily folded rocks, with faults that indication compressional forces.

We should get away from google and start speaking of science.

Then why don't you start explaining the observed phenomena in terms of this theory, and show why its a better explanation than tectonics??

Forces from heat are derived ONLY from thermal expansion.

You're really going to have to address this issue rather than out of hand rejecting it. Its pretty obvious to everyone here that if an object is atop a medium that is convecting......that object will move. Put a toy boat in a pot of boiling water, and it will be moved by convection. Change the thermal gradient of a lake, and you get upwelling of bottom nutrients and mixing of gases. Set up convection cells within the mantle, and the veneer of crust will move.

This is real science - with real verifiable numbers.

Its not real science, because it ignores the actual evidence that is out there.

You are all wrong, I am right!

Ohh! Now I get it! *smacks forehead* Man, what a dunce I've been, if only I'd realized that!

What is the citation for your 1998 paper on Rb Theory??

The continents are under stress from the gravitational forces that hold us in solar orbit - and to some extent those gravitational forces that hold our moon in earth orbit

Are you saying that Solar Gravitational forces are what causes the movement of plates, or that there is no movement of plates? If it causes the movement of plates, then why is the moon not tectonically active??? Mars?

The RB-Effect is supported by a complete set of principles and mathematical formulations

Thats nice. Try finding physical evidence and observations of nature that support it and that it explains better than plate tectonics does. Then you might have something.

Aelita those are not decimal places - it is scientific notation

Do you know what "Significant Digits" are?

I didn't want to lose ownership of the RB-Effect by having the professor publish it

You can't "own" explanatory theories. Newton couldn't 'own' the theory of gravity.

So, basically, your hypothesis hasn't been published in the scientific literature, right?

The MSU professor is named in my book, and all the communications we had with one another are there. As for review - that is impossible outside of University

How about you just tell us the title of the book or give us a citation??

Aelita
"I have a really powerful theory that explains the plate tectonics. It's called RB-theory. It's the best theory ever." This is so totally lame!

Damnit man didn't you know that he is right and we are all wrong! His theory is uber 733t

If I asked what your body weight was, you pulled out your bathroom scale and told me it's 149.2342840 lbs

Especially when the answer to his calculation is more precise than the numbers put into it!

bigx01
ah yes a web site that requires payment before you view anything

The website he cites is nature, and yes, the sumatran earthquake did change the earths rotation, because it changed the diamter of the earth, ever so slightly.
That means that the length of the day is different, not, as beforebc is claiming, that Time itself has changed.

It is these forces and bending moments that are causing crustal movements.

And how does this explain mountain building? Subduction? All these things you have said are immpossible, regardless of what mechanism is driving the crustal movements. How does your theory explain Ophiolites? Thinned crust at ridges? These are not explained by your theory.
Nor is the lack of tectonic activity on the moon. And mars.

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

OK, since obviously English is not your mother tongue, you can be excused for mixing up the words "notion" and "notation".
I meant "notion" and I did use this word, and you didn't get it and thought I was wrong. Fine.

(then again, I don't understand how one can write books with this level of language expertise).

Originally posted by beforebc
Scientific notation (excluding the units)
Avogadro's number = 6.0221415 × 10^23 or 6.0221415E23
Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10^34 or 6.626068 × 10E34
electric constant 8.854187817 x10^-12 or 8.854187817E-12
Newtonian constant of gravitation 6.7087x10^-39 or 6.7087E-39
Speed of light in a vacuum 2.99792458x10^8 or 6.7087E-39

It would seem that the top of your achievement in science is being able to transcribe 10^23 as 10E23. Congratulations! You accomplished something!

Let me point it out though that you got the Planck's constant wrong by 68 orders of magnitude and didn't even vince. You copied it from a reference book and made an error, and since your knowledge of physics is pretty much non-existent, you didn't even notice the flop. You had to exclude the units because you don't know much about those and were afraid to screw up or invite questions you can't answer. For example, you quoted the gravitational constant in units that you'll have a whole lot of trouble explaining.

I'll let you rejoice in looking at 3.23E27 and admiring the scientific look if it, and at the same time making a perfect laughing stock for this board.


[edit on 28-4-2006 by Aelita]

Lets keep it civil and not poke fun...

As I imagine our friend is concerned about the rules regarding advertising one's own material, I'll help out:

beforebc posted an image which was located on what I imagine is his website www.beforebc.com....
As the book talked on there is called

"The Gods, Gemini, and the Great Pyramid"

Amazon link

I imagine that is the publication in question.

If you do a Google search there is plenty of information available.
Hopefully now we all know what we are talking about, the conversation can now progress..

Hello AgentSmith and all

Answers for AgentSmith]

Your last comment re.,] Belittling comments like this:

We just have to talk to people who don't have to "google" all they know!

Answer] If you'd go back AgentSmith and look at the posts that they were made, you'll see that were google articles on tectonics, and then the poster was astonished that I didn't respond with: Oh! My, you're right - I'll just set 30 years of research on a new science aside just for you!

It was getting a bit much - and it distracted from those who'd have liked to read more of the science of it!

Ques 1.] What happens when the plates push together if not to create mountains

Ans 1.] Frankly that's agenda nonsense (there isn't any other word for it) I've mentioned several times that compressive forces are absorbed through shear (it's the principle in the construction of all foundations)! Mountains cannot be pushed up by horizontal forces. And anyone can look at a mountain and see with the unaided eye that the rocks are the same age every where they look.

They DO NOT show a 20 cm growth rate per year!

Ques 2.] How do you explain the measurements of plate movement using GPS sensors?

Ans 2.] The plates are moved by the gravitational forces that hold us in solar orbit.

Ques 3.] How do you explain the clearly visible fault lines?

Ans 3.] The faults are real enough, the plates are real enough - but they were NOT formed by some unseen flow of magma .. heat cannot move anything except by thermal expansion. It's purely impossible.

The plates were formed eons ago by the gravitational forces that hold us in solar orbit. Much research needs to be done on this. My work was without precedent and we had to investigate every single aspect of earth's history, but we kept it all within known physical principle.

Ques 4.] How do you explain the fact that mountains seem to form where plates meet and push together, or is this coincidence?

Ans 4.] First that isn't true. There are no plates anywhere near the Rockies, or anywhere near the Andes, or in Italy etc.

Ques 5.] If Earthquakes are caused by lightning or whatever you were getting at, what causes volcanos?

Ans 5.] Good question! I'm really not sure about volcanos. If I were to speculate I suggest that frictional forces created by the constant movement of the plates by the solar (and lunar) gravitational forces was causing some of it.

It is not inconceivable (knowing as we do that the earth is rampant with electrical activity) that volcanos are produced by an (electric furnace) of sorts. But again, tectonics has prevented anyone from doing serious research on this - so we'll have to wait and see.

But my preference is clearly an (electric furnace) of sorts.

Ques 6.] And out of curiosity, what are your theories on Continental Drift, or is the fact that all the landmasses clearly fit together actually just an illusion...?

Ans 6.] Continental Drift (powered by a thermal engine) is nonsense, the crust is caused to move by gravitational forces. If you want to say that Continental Drift is the result of orbital forces - then I'd agree.

As for landmasses fitting together; all I can say is "So do my fingers!"

Ques 7] superior to everyone else

Ans 7.] No! Just got tired of nuclear physicists who declared the research invalid because they couldn't read scientific notation!

bc
.





[edit on 28-4-2006 by beforebc]

Hello all,

I'd like to make this research more meaningful - by showing you the drawings that we worked from. The earth orbits the sun (as do all the planets) on the plane of the ecliptic - hence all gravitational forces, all sunlight, and all the sun's radiant energy comes to us from along the plane of the ecliptic. We are taught this, but it's not "emphasized" in the classroom - as it should be!

Our maps and thinking are oriented to the equator, but the sun "sees" the earth from the perspective of the ecliptic. Hence when we were calculating the forces and the bending of the crust, (i.e., bending moments) we had to use a unique drawing, and we had to calculate the center of mass of the crust relative to the ecliptic. This was the most difficult of all the tasks we faced.

One thing was of benefit. Mountains do not have a gravitational profile - that means that they cannot be "seen" with an instrument that measures gravity (hence the mass of a mountain is invisible). That was a huge benefit, because we could consider the earth's crust as a smooth surface.

Here is our drawing of the earth's crust as the sun "sees" it:
.


.
Bc

Ah fair enough, I misunderstood what you were getting at. I didn't realise you are contesting the methods rather than the actions as such. I admittedly have very little knowledge or interest in this field so I will retire as an observer/moderator unless I feel I have something useful to contribute, and leave you in the capable hands of our members

Good luck

Originally posted by beforebc
-snip-
One thing was of benefit. Mountains do not have a gravitational profile - that means that they cannot be "seen" with an instrument that measures gravity (hence the mass of a mountain is invisible). That was a huge benefit, because we could consider the earth's crust as a smooth surface.
-snip-

Not only you created a duplicate thread, you have the nerve to crosspost exact same entry in both, by cut and paste
from this page.
This is a vile form of spam as it takes place in a forum where people are paying attention to each other's posts.

Your statement about the "invisible" mass of the mountains is laughable as the rest of your "research". Regardless of how many 3.27E23 or 6.26E27 you put in your post.

[edit on 28-4-2006 by Aelita]

I'm at an impasse. The theories presented are interesting enough to me to warrant discussion, yet the apparently unrelenting ego of the presenter, as well as the grammatical and other errors scream "troll" to me. I've got a real love-hate thing going with this thread.

beforebc....
you keep saying that heat can't move anything except by thermal expansion, yet you've ignored the motion of my curtains when the heater is on and the rolling, boiling water observations another poster made.

I want to stick around, and see where this discussion leads, but the "My brain can beat up your brain" attitude prevalent in MOST of bbc's posts really turns me off.

Hello all

People here are discussing a subject that it is only theoretical, no real proof so far, just hints and small evidences and wishfull thinking.

First to explain the way that the crust behaves, we need to know exactly what is under our feet! I don't think that indirect observation in enough.

So far we can only guess. The deepest drilled hole in the continental crust is 12,262 meter, The drilling of the main borehole began in 1970, and a final depth of 12,262 meters was reached in 1994, this represent only 0,18% of the total earth radium, which is 6400 Kilometer. So no one really knows what's under. We just have touch the crust with a needle, we need to go much further down, mantle and core. Then we will start to have an ideia of what's is going on.

Second i think that we cannot set aside beforebc theorie, just because it's different of what we were told in school. There are so many things i have learned in school that now are proved to be wrong.

In my opinion i agree with beforebc, when he states that crust behave is in direct relation with gravitic fields from our planet surroundings. For me the G field is the number one factor on this.

People be open minded about this.

Crustas
PS-> Let's keep drilling earth until we find the nucleus, if there is one





[edit on 28-4-2006 by crustas]

I think he/she must have me on ignore, because he/she avoids my questions like the plague.

Originally posted by crustas
There are so many things i have learned in school that now are proved to be wrong.

Ouch! This must hurt. What school was that, again?