tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3631351380705955918.post7896195816435255300..comments2023-07-03T04:39:53.804-07:00Comments on Oenobareus: Getting Crankier Vann Priesthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00543377631826626540noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3631351380705955918.post-28688572448732226262013-07-09T13:14:17.985-07:002013-07-09T13:14:17.985-07:00Here you go. http://oenobareus.blogspot.com/2013/0...Here you go. http://oenobareus.blogspot.com/2013/07/getting-crankier-part-2.htmlVann Priesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00543377631826626540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3631351380705955918.post-53521685866307792082013-07-07T17:18:39.041-07:002013-07-07T17:18:39.041-07:00At times, surface gravity was lower on Pangea. But...At times, surface gravity was lower on Pangea. But specifically, at 250 Myr, surface gravity rapidly increased to near current values as Pangea's center of mass crossed the equator (see CNRS study mentioned earlier).<br /><br />When Pangea's center of mass crossed the equator, the Earth's core elements would have returned close to Earth-centricity, near where they are today. The theory we are discussing attributes the primary cause of the mass extinction 250 Myr (The Permian-Triassic Extinction) to this increase in surface gravitation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3631351380705955918.post-45533041159369170062013-07-07T12:04:41.661-07:002013-07-07T12:04:41.661-07:00So, the reason dinosaurs are were so giant was bec...So, the reason dinosaurs are were so giant was because of the gravitational pull of the earth was different 250 years ago than today?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3631351380705955918.post-87121597535091052152013-07-07T10:35:29.190-07:002013-07-07T10:35:29.190-07:00Fixed. Thanks, Chris. Fixed. Thanks, Chris. Vann Priesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00543377631826626540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3631351380705955918.post-22388614197419340042013-07-07T09:21:55.248-07:002013-07-07T09:21:55.248-07:00Mr. Priest attempts to calculate the purported cha...Mr. Priest attempts to calculate the purported change in angular velocity of the Earth due to the breakup and dispersal of Pangea. His assumptions in his calculation are:<br />1. Pangea’s center of mass was located on the equator 250 myr.<br />2. Today, the continental crust is distributed uniformly across the globe.<br /><br />Based on the above assumptions, in both cases, the center of mass of continental crust is on the equator. Therefore, the moment of inertia in both cases must be the same, meaning the angular velocity must also be the same to conserve AM.<br /><br />I am not a geologist either but the effects of oscillating core elements is apparent in geological history. All major flood basalt volcanic eruptions (e.g., Emeishan Traps, Siberian Traps, Deccan Traps, CAMP and others) occurred when Pangea’s center of mass moved toward the equator (per the CNRS study), and therefore, according to the theory, the core elements moved back toward Earth centricity. Vincent Courtillot, in his book ‘Evolutionary Catastrophes’, points out that a major extinction coincides with just about all massive flood basalt volcanic eruptions. The theory being discussed posits a pulse of increasing surface gravity is the primary cause of those extinctions resulting from the core elements moving toward Earth-centricity.<br /><br />Regarding the response to the Second Comment, I’m confused. Yes, surface gravity at the poles is less than at the equator based on difference in distance to the Earth’s center of mass. This is evident from the inverse square law (relative to distance) postulated by Newton. It’s exactly why surface gravity on Pangea changed when the Earth’s core elements moved off-center and away from Pangea, moving the Earth’s center of mass further away from Pangea. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3631351380705955918.post-40118273785574282132013-07-07T09:19:30.947-07:002013-07-07T09:19:30.947-07:00I will give Mr. Priest credit for responding to cr...I will give Mr. Priest credit for responding to criticism of his earlier posts.<br /><br />The Scotese animation of Pangea’s breakup and dispersal is interesting and Mr. Priest’s statement that the greatest change is longitudinal and not latitudinal is correct, but is not germane to the discussion. Only the latitudinal movement is relevant to angular momentum (which I will refer to as “AM”).<br />Note that the latitudinal movement during the breakup of Pangea was considerable. India was a subcontinent at the southern tip of Africa which rapidly moved to its current location. Australia moved northeast. South America rotated counterclockwise away from Africa and moved northward until it was positioned beneath the equator. Africa moved north colliding with southern Eurasia forming the mountain chains found there.<br /><br />But again, the latitudinal movement of Pangea, and its remnants, during the past 350 myrs is what is important, not just the dispersal movement after its breakup.<br /><br /> <br />The latitudinal movement of Pangea, during its consolidated state and afterward as discrete, separated continents has been documented in a recent research paper entitled “Plate tectonics may control geomagnetic reversal frequency.” Charts within this paper clearly illustrate how the center of mass of Pangea, and of the subsequent discrete continents, moved substantially below and above the equator during the last ~350myrs. I will refer to this paper as the CNRS study. <br /><br />The question originally asked was what would compensate for the major latitudinal movement of Pangea in order to conserve the Earth’s angular momentum.<br /><br />Regarding the skater, by pulling her arms in, moves mass closer to the spin axis, as Mr. Priest states. There is a “compensating action”; it is her increase in angular velocity which compensates for the mass movement toward the axis of rotation in order to conserve AM. <br />When Pangea’s center of mass moved north and south of the equator, per the CNRS study, mass also moved closer to the Earth’s axis of rotation. However the “compensating action” was not a change in the angular velocity of the Earth (i.e., a shorter day), as it is for the skater; it was the displacement of the core elements, an action which would increase the Earth’s AM to balance the reduction of AM from Pangea’s center of mass moving closer to the spin axis as it moved to a higher latitude.<br /><br />If the Earth’s interior were “rock solid”, incapable of any deformation, then the Earth’s angular velocity would have to increase as Pangea moved to higher latitudes. Since the CNRS study indicates that Pangea, and its remnants after breakup moved several times to high latitudes during the last 350 myrs, and there is no evidence that the Earth’s length of a day corresponded to those movements, it is safe to assume that something other than angular velocity was the “compensating action.”<br />Note that the length of a day has been gradually increasing over the last 350 myrs due to the movement of the moon, which is moving away from the Earth, stealing AM. This is not related to the current discussion.<br /><br />Continued in next postAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3631351380705955918.post-82856619577965028612013-07-06T23:37:05.304-07:002013-07-06T23:37:05.304-07:00Noticed a typo,
"... at the equator, and we w...Noticed a typo,<br />"... at the equator, and we we drop something ..."<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12058453168763243970noreply@blogger.com