One possible explanation of the dramatic changes of the Earth.

[AlexG]

I think we understand a dynamic system in different ways.
I understand this: System dynamics
I am convinced that only a team composed of experts in several fields can produce such a model.

An interesting thing would be:
Geometric shape that has the smallest area in a given volume is the sphere.
If Earth's rotation was greater in the past, and the earth has a more pronounced oval shape.
By slowing the rotation, the earth is closer to a spherical shape and its surface decreased.
It can be a cause of formation of mountains?

This is just so fuckin stupid.

 

[cofu]

how the DM is explanation of the change in the past

What conformity on a theme " drama changes in the past on a planet " are particularly proved - the facts and counterarguments instead of a market are necessary is in the first, in the second if you like Static model of the globe it is your choice try and to prove your hypotheses further

 

[florian]

This is just so fuckin stupid.

No, this not "just fucking stupid". Top geodynamists like Carlo Doglioni, who understand that slab pull can't drive plate tectonics due to the weak tensile strength of the Rock mass, explore the hypothesis that tidal despinning could drive plate tectonics:
Riguzzi et al (2010) "Can Earth's rotation and tidal despinning drive plate tectonics?" Tectonophysics Vol484, Issue 1-4, pages 60-73

Ophiolite, did you finish your multiplication or should I wait for one more week to get your apologies?

 

[eburacum45]

No, this not "just fucking stupid". Top geodynamists like Carlo Doglioni, who understand that slab pull can't drive plate tectonics due to the weak tensile strength of the Rock mass, explore the hypothesis that tidal despinning could drive plate tectonics:
Riguzzi et al (2010) "Can Earth's rotation and tidal despinning drive plate tectonics?" Tectonophysics Vol484, Issue 1-4, pages 60-73

Here's a table by Varga showing length of day for the last two billion years
http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/gi/research/schriftenreihe/quo_vadis/pdf/varga.pdf
note the value at 100 mya (in the Mesozoic) is 23hrs 30 mins;
even 2 billion years ago the day length was 19 hrs 12 minutes, which would only decrease equatorial gravity by 0.005 gees.

 

[florian]

Here's a table by Varga showing length of day for the last two billion years
http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/gi/research/schriftenreihe/quo_vadis/pdf/varga.pdf
note the value at 100 mya (in the Mesozoic) is 23hrs 30 mins;
even 2 billion years ago the day length was 19 hrs 12 minutes, which would only decrease equatorial gravity by 0.005 gees.

First, Emil's hypothesis of a very high rotation rate in the past is not supported.
Second, the comment suggesting that the idea of the importance of the rotation of earth and tidal effect on tectonics is "just fucking stupid", is plain wrong.
Third, the LoD are always calculated assuming that the revolution period of Earth remained constant. The later is not a fact but a reasonable assumption.

 

[Trippy]

Third, the LoD are always calculated assuming that the revolution period of Earth remained constant. The later is not a fact but a reasonable assumption.

It may have initially been an assumption, but it is one that has subsequently been confirmed by combining orbital mechanics with data from things such as tidalites (eg Bills' comparison of Lunar semi-major axis from Webb's model to that infered from the Mansfield, Elatina and Cottonwood tidalites).

 

[florian]

It may have initially been an assumption, but it is one that has subsequently been confirmed by combining orbital mechanics with data from things such as tidalites (eg Bills' comparison of Lunar semi-major axis from Webb's model to that infered from the Mansfield, Elatina and Cottonwood tidalites).

Still wrong. Webb' model is outdated by Poliakow's model which predictions do not match observations. For example, it predicts that the current receding rate is 2.9 cm/y whereas it is 3.8 cm/y.

 

[Trippy]

Still wrong. Webb' model is outdated by Poliakow's model which predictions do not match observations. For example, it predicts that the current receding rate is 2.9 cm/y whereas it is 3.8 cm/y.

LOL.

From Poliakow:

The table, apart from L and δ, shows the mechanical quality Q of the Earth’s ocean-crust oscillatory, the system rate of separation ˙R and secular acceleration of the Moon’s ω˙ , and the lengthening of the terrestrial day τ˙ . The magnitudes of the above parameters obtained from an analysis of movement of the satellites and calculated on a model for the present epoch are in satisfactory agreement.

I've emphasized the salient point for you, seeing as how you appear to have missed it when you read the paper for yourself.

So no, still not wrong, and Webbs' model isn't outdated by Poliakows work.

 

[florian]

I've emphasized the salient point for you, seeing as how you appear to have missed it when you read the paper for yourself.

No. It is of the same order, with the measured value 31% higher than the predicted value. Not terrific.

 

[Trippy]

No. It is of the same order, with the measured value 31% higher than the predicted value. Not terrific.

Which is actually a very good fit, when you consider the simplicifications that are built into the model to make it calculable in the lifetime of a single human.

 

[cofu]

Dynamic globe model

So the DM operates with time parameters in limits: last time Ms (an environment of a planet) was in a stationary position about
(1000 years) back, in connection with that the weight of an environment of a planet in a zone of the Southern polar circle has decreased a corner of turn Ms on the last
site of the schedule also has decreased - as consequence a level of Ocean last time reached max a mark about in a point (á) ~ 70 thousand years ago
, after last processes (a - b) and ( b - b' ) ~ 1000 years ago the level of Ocean and has remained at a present level (c) - but here there is very unpleasant moment - to stabilize a present level of Ocean (this level in the past for the last ~ 700 thousand years continuously
changed between max and min marks) it is necessary to transform annually into water about (1000 kms / 3); it is theoretically possible to ignore
the DM and all positions which are proved by simple mathematics, and now practically this civilization in general is helpless - as soon as parameters of a thermal stream of bowels (changes which will follow are not taken into account in practical activities) will change; all this literary trash on a paper at the given stage of development of a science is easily modelled, that allows to compare theoretical substantiations of DM with practical; DM has proved time parameters of processes of III natural phenomenon that has allowed to define when the Earth appeared in Solar system thus has changed: the gravity and duration of day, Static model operates with millions years any way - so in detail for those who does not have time to penetrate into those positions which has proved DM and with which foggy hypotheses quite arrange (about the past) which continue to be published in magazines