Why does the ocean elevate?

Ah... Some light dawns. I need to digest this in context. Thank you..

I still find your terms for describing the consequences not merely off-putting and misleading, but frankly incorrect. There was nothing wrong with the planet - its just decidedly inconvenient for any life there. Wrong keeps hinting at a designer and that is dangerous ground.
 
Guess you're right. Sorry about that. Bad move. But from a human point of view our planet fails to be the safe house we would like to have.

And it's a lot to digest indeed thinking about my archive with well over one thousend entries with physical evidence.

Presently studying how to achieve a paradigm shift.

refuting attemps are welcome.

Evidence exhibit nr1 is the most striking, meet the Northern Hemisphere around 30,000 years ago:

mmm.gif
 
Last edited:
Useful summary of Khun. I cannot remember if I read his seminal work or not. I was certainly influenced by it, but probably through second hand articles and discussions. As the saying goes (modified) "I've already forgotten more than I ever knew."

re the graphic. I never knew the Mammoths were so big!
:)
 
Well, actually they weren't. Of the four main mammoth species, the oldest one, Mammuthus meridionalis (Southern Mammoth) that lived between 2,5 million years and 800 thousend years ago had an average shoulder height of some 4,5 meters (15 ft), it's successors the steppe mammoth (mammuthus Trogontherii) and the Colombian mammoth (Mammuthus columbis) living in the mid Pleistocene were alightly smaller,with shoulder heights around 4,20 meters, the Columbian being the biggest. Both species were gradually replaced by the Woolly Mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), the best know species was also the smallest with average shoulder heigths around 2,7 meters, with the last specimen know from Wrangel island 4000 years ago. He is also he most ignored evidence of a much more enigmatic Ice Age than Scholars want us to believe.

So how to write that book to convince the average reader that it's not the usual crackpot (Hugh Brown, Velikovsky, Flemm-Ath) at work?
 
Woolly mammoth: 2.7 m = 8.9 feet. Shoulder height on an African elephant, for comparison is 240 - 400 cm or 2.4 - 4 m or 7.9 ft - 13.2 ft


So how to write that book to convince the average reader that it's not the usual crackpot (Hugh Brown, Velikovsky, Flemm-Ath) at work?
Click to expand...

Use Logic and Humor
 
Last edited:
Andre said:
So how to write that book to convince the average reader that it's not the usual crackpot (Hugh Brown, Velikovsky, Flemm-Ath) at work?
Click to expand...
Meticulous research
Structured presentation
Amenable style
Restrained claim
Editing by Ophiolite :)
 
Thanks Nilequeen and Ophiolite, seems an excellent idea. BTW, Ophiolite, perhaps you may like to look in the upper right corner of this window and hit the link "Private Messages"
 
look! pooh has returned! I missed that pic in the old polar wander thread (and the link to the dung beetles in Siberia study is missing :( ).

BTW, Andre- while our original discussion on that topic ended with me disagreeing with you, I've run into more and more reasons why your theory makes sense.

Now that I know it was just a part of a bigger theory on fluid dinamics RE: planetary rotation in space, I'll have to keep thinking on it. Earth wobble RE: a raw egg has a fair amount of promise, IMO.

I did alot of egg-spinning as a kid, maybe something will come of this. Though you are right, having the moon's gravitational pull in play is going to make things much more complicated.
Once you feel confident, post a thread on the topic, and lets all tear it to shreds and then build it up again - the true hive-mind at work!!!
 
Hi R-W, yes, the bad spelling bear of little brain is still active ;)

Sure, if you like I can post my idea of the Rapid True Polar Wander mechanism sometimes. But it's not easy.
 
Andre said:
If the Earth magnetic field was directly caused by it's rotation, how to explain the numerous magnetic pole flips?
Click to expand...
The magnetic field is caused by currents of metals in the Earth's outer core. It is their rotation, not the rotation of the Earth itself, that causes the Earth's magnetic field.
 
mercurio said:
But I'd never have guessed sediments getting sucked under at subduction zones to take an active, rather explosive part in it all, with Mount St. Helens as an example: so it does more than just 'lean' on it via accretion.
Click to expand...
The magma under Mt. St. Helens has a higher silica content than more viscous magmas such as those in Hawaii. The higher silica content makes the magma much stickier, harder for disolved gasses to escape. The result is that pressure builds up untill the gasses relieve the pressure explosively.

When sea floor subducts (usually at about a 45 degree angle), it brings a significant water content with it. The subducted material then heats to the same temperature as the surrounding rock. However, the higher water content of the rock allows it to melt at a lower temperature, more than 100 Kelvin cooler. Since the rock is under pressure, like toothpaste in a stepped-on tube, it squirts free to the surface in any cracks it can find. This is why you find volcanos near the junction of two tectonic plates.
 
Thanks for the reaction, Maddad, but this discussion has ceased to thrill me. Some other time, maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top