|
Terracycles |
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) |
|