Terracycles
Posted by Roger Hunter on December 13, 2001 at 23:52:47:

Hi all;

David thought I was being sarcastic when I said the ocean was no more important than dew on an apple.

But I was overstating its importance.

Look at the numbers. The earth is (very roughly) 4000 miles in radius and a good sized apple is about 2 inches in radius. If we say the ocean is 4 miles deep (an overstatement) then it's 4/4000 of the radius which is 0.001.

And 0.001 times 2 inches is 0.002 inches.

Now I suggest that dew on an apple is thicker than that by many times. Anybody got a number for dewdrops?

His hypothesis has a number of larger holes. The motion of the Pacific plate(s) is a counterclockwise rotation, not a simple east-west movement. The Atlantic has no seismicity belts on either side to speak of despite the spreading from the mid-atlantic ridge.

And so on and so forth.

Roger


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Terracycles - David Thomson  08:29:20 - 12/14/2001  (11929)  (2)
        ● Re: Terracycles - Roger Hunter  15:53:21 - 12/14/2001  (11943)  (2)
           ● Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - David Thomson  22:56:14 - 12/14/2001  (11964)  (1)
              ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Roger Hunter  06:51:23 - 12/15/2001  (11981)  (1)
                 ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - David Thomson  07:28:49 - 12/15/2001  (11987)  (3)
                    ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Roger Hunter  18:31:58 - 12/15/2001  (12027)  (1)
                       ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - David Thomson  21:39:17 - 12/15/2001  (12035)  (1)
                          ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Roger Hunter  07:26:17 - 12/16/2001  (12054)  (0)
                    ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Roger Hunter  15:16:33 - 12/15/2001  (12009)  (1)
                       ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - David Thomson  17:04:14 - 12/15/2001  (12020)  (1)
                          ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Roger Hunter  17:51:47 - 12/15/2001  (12025)  (1)
                             ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - David Thomson  21:48:25 - 12/15/2001  (12037)  (1)
                                ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Roger Hunter  07:12:48 - 12/16/2001  (12051)  (0)
                    ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Don In Hollister  08:55:24 - 12/15/2001  (11991)  (1)
                       ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Billion Watts  09:27:46 - 12/15/2001  (11994)  (2)
                          ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - 2cents  15:12:49 - 12/15/2001  (12008)  (0)
                          ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Don In Hollister  09:58:17 - 12/15/2001  (11998)  (0)
           ● Open Question - bobshannon.org  16:42:40 - 12/14/2001  (11944)  (2)
              ● Re: Open Question - Mary C.  19:57:36 - 12/14/2001  (11954)  (1)
                 ● Re: Open Question - bobshannon.org  22:33:07 - 12/14/2001  (11960)  (1)
                    ● Re: Open Question - Roger Hunter  06:53:50 - 12/15/2001  (11982)  (1)
                       ● Actually no.. - bobshannon.org  09:53:21 - 12/15/2001  (11996)  (0)
              ● Re: Open Question - Roger Hunter  17:09:13 - 12/14/2001  (11945)  (0)
        ● Re: Terracycles - Scorpio  11:22:44 - 12/14/2001  (11939)  (3)
           ● Re: Terracycles - David Thomson  20:59:45 - 12/14/2001  (11957)  (0)
           ● Re: Terracycles - Canie  12:54:12 - 12/14/2001  (11942)  (0)
           ● Re: Terracycles - bobshannon.org  12:42:08 - 12/14/2001  (11941)  (0)
     ● Re: Terracycles - bobshannon.org  05:18:15 - 12/14/2001  (11928)  (0)