Help! crackpot detected

[Squawk]

Dun feel bad, I only know it because I was a big Total Annihilation fan and there was a metal extracting unit called the "Moho Metal Extractor" and I was like 'wtf does moho mean' so I had looked it up.

Well shit a brick, I was a bit TA fan too. Never realised it was named for a reason like that.

Interesting stuff on the gravity mapping, how much of a correction would a feature such as, say, the himilayas put on the flight plan of a typical ICBM?

 

[Womble]

Dun feel bad, I only know it because I was a big Total Annihilation fan and there was a metal extracting unit called the "Moho Metal Extractor" and I was like 'wtf does moho mean' so I had looked it up.

Well shit a brick, I was a bit TA fan too. Never realised it was named for a reason like that.

Interesting stuff on the gravity mapping, how much of a correction would a feature such as, say, the himilayas put on the flight plan of a typical ICBM?

Actually the himalayas, i think it's them (they've got the nepal platau right?), have had their root seperate and drop into the mantle. So they've got an anomoly for a mountain that they have no root.

 

[orpiment99]

Actually the himalayas, i think it's them (they've got the nepal platau right?), have had their root seperate and drop into the mantle. So they've got an anomoly for a mountain that they have no root.

Really? Do you have a source for that?

 

[Womble]

It was on a documentary about the power of the Earth done by Dr Iain Stewart. Here's a link to it http://www.amazon.co.uk/Earth-Power-Planet-Blu-ray/dp/B001ARYYUY/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1252997329&sr=1-6

I'll put my hands up to not having read the research papers but it's a BBC one and the guy is a Volcanologist so i'm going with it being likely.

If it's not that series it'll be one called Earth Story which is presented by a Dr Aubry Manning and is again a BBC one and is here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Earth-Story-DVD/dp/B000FS9SGE/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1252997329&sr=1-8

 

[xman]

I know for a fact that the effect of gravitational pull is different. I was personally shown by one physics professor how the rate of fall 9.8m/s^2 actually varies in different places. This was one of the problems that actually threw off Hugyen's Pendulum solution to keeping time on ships.

Watchmaker here. no. the reason huygen's pendulum(a simple slowbeat pendulum) didnt work on ships was the movement. aka the boat rocks to and fro which will throw of any setup on the escapement , making it incorrect , ergo, useless for finding out longitudes. however, on land, the pendulum needs to be of different length at different latitudes to get the same swing timer(aka, to keep time)

Both answers are equally correct. Since the movement of the ship would agitate and change the pendulum's angular velocity, which Einstein showed is equal to gravity, both explain it from a different perspective, one from a watchmaker's, one from physics student's perhaps.

 

[Womble]

It was on a documentary about the power of the Earth done by Dr Iain Stewart. Here's a link to it http://www.amazon.co.uk/Earth-Power-Planet-Blu-ray/dp/B001ARYYUY/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1252997329&sr=1-6

I'll put my hands up to not having read the research papers but it's a BBC one and the guy is a Volcanologist so i'm going with it being likely.

If it's not that series it'll be one called Earth Story which is presented by a Dr Aubry Manning and is again a BBC one and is here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Earth-Story-DVD/dp/B000FS9SGE/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1252997329&sr=1-8

I still can't remember which of the two it's from but i have remembered some of the stuff from the episode.

There is botanical evidence of a change in altitude (i.e. the land mass has bouyed up following isostatic rebound of the crust following the root falling off) and there is some unusual seismic activity and faulting as the uplifted land mass is sliding down and spreading out. And it's deffinately the nepal platau.

 

[orpiment99]

This is the closest I could find to what you are describing:

Over the last few years several models have been proposed, all based on assumption that the crust is detached from a subducting upper mantle with prescribed kinematics (e.g. Willet et al., 1993). Various rheologies, possibly with some depth dependence, as well as various distributions of erosion across the surface, have been considered (Williams et al., 1994; Willet, 1999).

From here:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ikFcqh1u1Q0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=plate+subduction+nepal+isostasy&ots=VAVgaqBSew&sig=EAB2iunLRIwv17WfAwMpi-CjX1E#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Does that sound similar?

 

[Womble]

This is the closest I could find to what you are describing:

Over the last few years several models have been proposed, all based on assumption that the crust is detached from a subducting upper mantle with prescribed kinematics (e.g. Willet et al., 1993). Various rheologies, possibly with some depth dependence, as well as various distributions of erosion across the surface, have been considered (Williams et al., 1994; Willet, 1999).

From here:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ikFcqh1u1Q0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=plate+subduction+nepal+isostasy&ots=VAVgaqBSew&sig=EAB2iunLRIwv17WfAwMpi-CjX1E#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Does that sound similar?

I'm not sure, it's was a program pitched for general viewing not for scientific audience. I know that decoupling between the crust and the mantle can take place as thats what happened with the 1974 (?) Tangshan earthquake in China.

 

[orpiment99]

I'm just having trouble trying to picture how the root could detach like that. But then, tectonics and geophysics are not my specialty. Eh, I think I've hijacked the thread on this for long enough. Thanks, though...

 

[Womble]

The root of a mountain becoming detatched will most likely be down to gravity (working this out off the cuff) and contributed by Geophysical conditions. I'm currently watching one of the documentaries again and if it's not in this one i'll check the other. If you like once i've tracked the info down on the DVD's i can pm you to go through it.

 

[orpiment99]

I don't see how it can possibly be gravity when the India plate is actively subducting underneath the Himalayas (at least, the oceanic portion of it appears to be still seismically active underneath the Himalayas, a strong indication that the slab is still attached and sinking into the mantle). My tectonics textbook doesn't appear to have anything like it (Kearey et al., 2008). But yeah, if you can get some references from your movie, I'd like to see them and a p.m. would be fine.

 

[TheFearmonger]

Well, rafgas, this dude has pretty well been obliviated(far, FAR worse than obliterated), and hopefully he will see reason. But even if he claims these are fake, ask him; if the world isn't spinning, how are there seasons and days. Then, he would be forced to say that he believed the sun revolves around the earth. Then, simply tell him of the basic gravitational differences betwwen the earth and a thing much bigger than it, and let him know that is impossible. If you debase someones premise for an argument, then the conclusion as follows must be false, or it is illogical and not truth-preserving. Numbers can be fabricated. Laws of nature cannot be. Let him run out of steam in his own argument, then show him the data. Good luck!!

 

[Womble]

I don't see how it can possibly be gravity when the India plate is actively subducting underneath the Himalayas (at least, the oceanic portion of it appears to be still seismically active underneath the Himalayas, a strong indication that the slab is still attached and sinking into the mantle). My tectonics textbook doesn't appear to have anything like it (Kearey et al., 2008). But yeah, if you can get some references from your movie, I'd like to see them and a p.m. would be fine.

........ It's a documentary not a film, fact not fiction.

And it's deffinately the Earth Story one.