sliver, please bear a little longer with my "debate" here...you must remember that your thread would have been forgotten by now, had I not mentioned the thing with the other map...as you can see, most threads are of interest for a few days, that is all...I understand your concern, and ask you to have a little more patience at hand...
deceiver, you refuse to answer to any of the issues I raised here (faint young sun paradox, impossibility of a spherical sun, the impossibility of a big bang scenario, the fact that the clouds show clearly that we find ourselves on a stationary earth, and much more), as I said before, you know at the present time about 5% (we could of course lower that threshold, given your performance here) of what a true scientist should know...
I ALREADY answered your analysis of the granite issue. Here is WHAT YOU WROTE, your main point/argument:
The problem with granite is that it takes an extremely long time to get crystals of that size ...
See, deceiver, you are basing your argument on the validity of the radiodating method which is completely wrong to start with.
That is why I told you from the very beginning: you are accepting official data/arguments without having a second thought about them...the system will reward you with grants and a chance to further your education, but you will not gain any respect...
Please update your understanding of the radiodating/stratigraphy methods, as they ARE COMPLETELY FALSE:
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v8i9f.htmhttp://www.worldbydesign.org/research/c14dating/datingdinosaurs.htmlhttp://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.htmlhttp://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.htmlHere is the dean of the faculty of mathematics/mechanics at the Moscow University, A. Fomenko, explaining to you how the radiodating CANNOT be used at all:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=2#v=onepage&q&f=falseCHAPTER I, SECTIONS 14, 15, 16, 17, THEY STARY ON PAGE 71
Your argument, as you posted it here, has no validity whatsoever, given the blatant, grevious errors of the radiodating method; you say that, and I quote:
we're forming very complex mineral structures that take (emphasis: mineral physics predicts this, geochemistry experiments confirm the rates) tens of thousands of years to form... NO DECEIVER, the radiodating methods, introduced by the most ignorant of all scientists, namely Willard Libby, are very wrong, and cannot be used to form an argument re: the origin of granite.
Therefore, deceiver, we go back to what I wrote originally:
Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth.
When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/04earth4.htmhttp://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/04earth3.htmhttp://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-3a.htmhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/catastrophic-granite-formation (read this one carefully)
Geologist's built the theory of an evolving earth on the premise that the basement granites formed naturally. They did this without having firm scientific evidence for their formation.
(29 Conference proceedings publications in 1947, 1988 and 1991 show that geologists continue to argue about the origin of granites (see 1947 "Origin of Granite", Geological Society of America, Memoir 28; 1988 "The Origin of Granites", Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Earth Sciences, 79, parts 2-3; 1991 "Second Hutton Symposium on the Origin of Granites and Related Rocks", Brown & Chappell eds)
(30) Rhyolite is a pale rock with tiny crystals that is said to be the result of granite cooling over a long time under the earth's surface.
(31) It is assumed that granite forms very deep under the surface, because they have larger crystals than rhyolite. But rhyolite samples said to have formed 1683 feet below the surface only have tiny crystals.
(32) Experiments were conducted in the 1960's where granite was melted, then cooled slowly under conditions similar to those believed to exist deep inside the earth. The result produced a rock identical to rhyolite.
(33) Granite halos therefore show that granites formed under unnatural conditions.
(34) Geologist Andrew Snelling examined many granite outcrops and found that there was no mixing between the granite and other rocks that formed at the same time.
(35) Mixing should occur if different types of rocks formed from molten magma that cooled over millions of years. There should not be distinct boundaries between them.
http://nitishpriyadarshi.blogspot.com/2008/01/did-god-created-rocks-of-our-earth-in.htmlhttp://unmaskingevolution.com/12-radiohalos.htmRead again the Faint Young Sun Paradox, it disproves immediately your lousy arguments...
You wanna play hardball with me?
Let me completely destroy your nonsensical beliefs about the world we live in, especially hypothesis that the Earth is rotating around its own axis with 1600 km/hr (at the equator)...
The extraordinary timelapse photography/videos which show that the Earth is completely stationary, and not rotating around its own axis with 1600 km/hr (at the equator):
(four different directions for the clouds, at the same time)
(New York, incompatible cloud trajectory with that of the axially rotating Earth)
(Hollywood Hills, opposite directions)
The famous Cloudscape sequence from Koyaanisqatsi - Cloudscape (cloud layers, different directions):
(0:33 - 0:50)
And now, the complete demonstration that the earth could not possibly rotate around its own axis with 1600 km/hr or around the Sun with 29 km/s:
From Galileo was wrong:
If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.
Atmospheric circulation:
The conventional model
Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:
The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth's surface is composed of similar materials. Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles. The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:
If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.
Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach's principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns?
It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes, that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth, it defies either logic or observation.
If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.
Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air's freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.Friction is a force with becomes weaker as the altitude increases, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE concept of the restoring force whose magnitude must increase for higher altitudes. The videos above show that friction as a restoring force concept does not exist at all!
http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Restoring%20forces.htmThis implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v|. Whether this field rotates or not is immaterial. It must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World).
However, such a field does not exist, for if it did we would find it exceedingly difficult to travel in any direction other than around our particular parallel of latitude in an eastwardly direction. A field that is constantly acting to push air molecules into line will act likewise on all molecules in the atmosphere, whether they be part of aeroplanes, cars or ourselves.
The World either rotates or it doesn't.
If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.
If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).
Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.
So far, in conventional physics, there is no lateral "gravitation/gravity" which could possibly maintain the atmosphere at the same speed as that of the Earth; again, we would have the Restoring Forces Paradox, exemplified in the link above.
There still seems to exist confusion as to what angular momentum is, and I
think that the main reason for this is that "everyone just knows" that the
acentric problem of a spinning World/atmosphere system (as put forward by
Aristotle) has been explained away by invoking the law of the conservation of
angular momentum.
We need to delve a little deeper into the physics here. Angular momentum is
defined as the product of moment of inertia with angular frequency about a
common axis of rotation. Molecules of a gas do not have any angular frequency
about a common axis of rotation, except in the case of something like a
hurricane or a tornado (and haven't we all seen just how much damage something
as 'small' as that can do?). To illustrate this, consider a single air
molecule. He's merrily going about his business, sometimes going one way, then
another. Sometimes travelling along a straight line, with absolutely no axis of
rotation.
Now, the 'conventional' treatment of our atmosphere is that these molecules
interact with one another, such that the angular momentum of the whole is
conserved. This is wrong for at least two reasons: There are thermal convection
currents within the atmosphere (and, boy, if you lived in Caithness, you'd know
all about them!) which have a great effect on the air molecules. These
convection currents have absolutely nothing to do with angular momentum (these
are perhaps the greatest reason why Mike's so-called "closed system" is
invalid). They are due to the incoming heat from the Sun, heating up different
components of the World and its atmosphere at different rates, depending upon
composition. These convection currents will act so as to disrupt any alleged
angular momentum of our considered molecule. Their effect upon our molecule
will be totally overwhelming, compared with any possible transference of
angular momentum. ANY 'ANGULAR MOMENTUM' THAT OUR MOLECULE MAY HAVE HAD WILL BE
CHANGED BY THE ACTION OF SOMETHING ORIGINATING OUTSIDE OF THE WORLD/ATMOSPHERE
SYSTEM. Once changed, the total angular momentum of the whole atmosphere (if
such a thing existed) would be changed. If it has changed, then it is not
conserved. I hope that you will all see that there is no way that total angular
momentum can be conserved and that we are not talking of any form of
theoretical "closed system." The second reason is closely tied to the first. As
I have said many times now, angular momentum is an attribute of rigid bodies.
That is how it is DEFINED. Note that ALL the particles within a rigid body have
the SAME angular frequency about a COMMON axis of rotation, irrespective of how
far each of them is from that axis. Angular momentum does not apply to gases,
nor, in general, to fluids.
Molecules in a gas transfer linear momentum between themselves, but even these
are inelastic collisions.
This atmospheric rotation anomaly seems to depend on air that's schizophrenic - it's actually a non-viscous gas, but acts like a solid when surrounding the Earth! It's not mechanically coupled to the Earth, but rotates with it at basically every altitude, as
though it were. It even moves fastest in the same direction as the (alleged)
rotation (jet streams)!
I have asked NASA, NOAA, JPL, the Australian weather
forum, 2 US meteorologists and a host of internet weather 'gurus' to
explain the ARA, and get basically 3 answers:
1.. no response
2.. a description of the global circulation pattern that includes the
minor effect of the Coriolis force but ignores the primary and major effect
of the Earth's central surface speed of 1100 mph on the atmosphere.
3.. admission that they don't know, but no concern that they don't.
As far as I understand it, the law of conservation of angular momentum applies
to rigid bodies. Not to liquids and not to gases. The reason for this necessity
is that imparting a torque to a molecule in a rigid body affects the whole
body, which is not the case with the other two states.
Consider the World, without an atmosphere, spinning in a vacuum. If we then
wrap a non-moving atmosphere around it, that atmosphere will serve to damp the
spin of the World. Do we agree that in this scenario the World will slow down
and the atmosphere will start to turn?
On the assumption that we do, then where we disagree is in what follows on from
this. There is no way that the World will ever speed up again, right? We have
now a World-atmosphere "closed system," in your terminology, that you will say
has reached some sort of equilibrium in terms of its angular momentum. What I
am saying is that this is not a "closed system," in the sense you infer, but an
interactive system between a rotating spherical object (not even rigid, because
of its excessive water content), surrounded by a gaseous envelope.
The crux of the difference between us is this: you maintain an equilibrium
because of the "closed system," and I accept that you have "conventional"
physics on your side, insofar as that is the "party line." I maintain that the
World would constantly be losing the energy that it possessed as a result of
its rotation, to an atmosphere which would heat up due to this friction and
dissipate this extra energy by radiating most of it out into space.
If the atmosphere is rotating en mass with the World, and winds spring up all
over the place, in almost random directions, then what is it that acts upon the
molecules in those winds, in order to bring them back into eastwardly,
differential rotation with the World?
If it were the pressure exerted by other air molecules, then in a very short
timespan the atmosphere, as a whole, would slow down and stop.
Poll