Earths Expansion and Declining Seas

[AnnaG]

One of us made seven errors but it wasn't me. The electric sun and the universe along with it are proven and I have absolutely no worry about you proving that wrong.

And that's your story and your sticking to it. Yeah yeah, we heard it all before. It's still funny nonsense.

And did any civilization develop in Mongolia?

You've never been to Ulaan Baatar? Tsk tsk It's a nice place. You should try it sometime. Or Ulaangorn? And the Mongols are lovely people.

There is one I did think of, however - Tiahuanaco in Bolivia at over 4000 meters.

Saskatoon is about 500 meters above sea level. You can't exactly call it mountainous around there. It's debatable whether it has a civilisation or not, though. lol

 

[darkbeaver]

Maybe you can comment on another issue of elementary physics beaver? Does shifting islands mean that the seas are declining? Is it not possible to have rising seas, and shifting islands that stay above sea level?

Islands appear and disappear with regularity, and that's all it means. They aren't fixed in space or time how elementary does it have to get Watson?:smile:

Don't forget the aluminum foil hat to protect your brain against alien throught control.

At least you got the material right. You'd be surprised at the specimens who still think it's tinfoil.:smile: You would be interested in what alien things actually do control much of the minds function I bet. The radiations of other worlds do exercise the ultimate control of minds, decisions are routinely made because of alien input, of a demonstratable physical sort no less. In fact most of the brains fiction is taken up by alien to it and external stimulation. You're trying to do it all by yourself, maybe that's your problem.:smile:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

There is an awful lot of physics to understand ...

Not in the case of the electric cosmos. All you need to understand is the work of Faraday and Maxwell, it's easy to prove the hypothesis has no merit with only the physics of the19th century. I've linked you to the details several times, but your religion remains unshaken. If a scientific proposition is contradicted by the data, the proposition is discarded, if a religious proposition is contradicted by the data, the data is discarded. The latter is what you do so well.

 

[darkbeaver]

And that's your story and your sticking to it. Yeah yeah, we heard it all before. It's still funny nonsense.

Electricity is funny nonsense?????????? You must be a hoot and chuckle at parties.

 

[AnnaG]

Electricity is funny nonsense?????????? You must be a hoot and chuckle at parties.

That's not what I said. That's one of your twists on something I said.

 

[darkbeaver]

Not in the case of the electric cosmos. All you need to understand is the work of Faraday and Maxwell, it's easy to prove the hypothesis has no merit with only the physics of the19th century. I've linked you to the details several times, but your religion remains unshaken. If a scientific proposition is contradicted by the data, the proposition is discarded, if a religious proposition is contradicted by the data, the data is discarded. The latter is what you do so well.

Both knew space was conductive and both supported and proposed an electric model. The data supporting the electric model is unassailable. The theory is greatly employed across industry and science.

 

[AnnaG]

Islands appear and disappear with regularity, and that's all it means. They aren't fixed in space or time how elementary does it have to get Watson?:smile:



At least you got the material right. You'd be surprised at the specimens who still think it's tinfoil.:smile: You would be interested in what alien things actually do control much of the minds function I bet. The radiations of other worlds do exercise the ultimate control of minds, decisions are routinely made because of alien input, of a demonstratable physical sort no less. In fact most of the brains fiction is taken up by alien to it and external stimulation. You're trying to do it all by yourself, maybe that's your problem.:smile:

Nope. Astrology isn't a real science.

 

[darkbeaver]

That's not what I said. That's one of your twists on something I said.

It's exactly in keeping with what you wrote. I always find it delightful when someone charges that their words have been twisted and then are shown that they twisted them all by themselves and want to do a further rewind. You didn't say anything, you wrote something, be more concise in the future and you won't be embarassed this way so often.:smile:

Nope. Astrology isn't a real science.

Where do you suppose astronomy came from?

 

[AnnaG]

It's exactly in keeping with what you wrote. I always find it delightful when someone charges that their words have been twisted and then are shown that they twisted them all by themselves and want to do a further rewind. You didn't say anything, you wrote something, be more concise in the future and you won't be embarassed this way so often.:smile:

Lies. What I did say was in reply to your comment that "The electric sun and the universe along with it are proven and I have absolutely no worry about you proving that wrong." is nonsense. Your hypothesis is rather like the Charlie Farquharson version in that sense.
Keep twisting, beaver. Your contortions are funny.

Where do you suppose astronomy came from?

From archaic superstitions. Basically, from the same sort of place most of your thoughts come from.

On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis

 

[Tonington]

Islands appear and disappear with regularity, and that's all it means. They aren't fixed in space or time how elementary does it have to get Watson?:smile:

Yes, Islands disappear and form all the time. So how then do you figure that these few islands negate the thermal expansion of the oceans?

That is an elementary fail in logic.

 

[darkbeaver]

Lies. What I did say was in reply to your comment that "The electric sun and the universe along with it are proven and I have absolutely no worry about you proving that wrong." is nonsense.
Keep twisting, beaver. Your contortions are funny.



From archaic superstitions. Basically, from the same sort of place most of your thoughts come from.

On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis

Archaic superstitions like the seasons? Like the orbits? Like the planets and constellations? You're at it again. What's really funny is your attempt at counter contortions of perceived contortions. The source of your mirth is afforded you through warped perceptions no less real than if you were drunk. You're not drinking Saturday afternoons away again are you? I hope someone has your pick ups keys.:smile:

Yes, Islands disappear and form all the time. So how then do you figure that these few islands negate the thermal expansion of the oceans?

That is an elementary fail in logic.

What thermal expansion? The expanse of the oceans can be as simple as adding more water(occams razor) and since water is available for import I just naturally think that it's the direction to think in.

 

[Tonington]

What thermal expansion? The expanse of the oceans can be as simple as adding more water(occams razor) and since water is available for import I just naturally think that it's the direction to think in.

What thermal expansion? The thermal expansion associated with 20*10^22J of heat stored in the world ocean between the 1950's and the 1990's for starters.

And are you seriously contending that ocean expansion is due to more water moving into basins, and at the same time arguing that these islands prove that mean sea level is dropping?

I guess consistency isn't a strong suit of those who deny reality.

 

[AnnaG]

Archaic superstitions like the seasons?

Nope.

Like the orbits?

Nope.

Like the planets and constellations?

Nope. debunk astrology - Google Search

You're at it again. What's really funny is your attempt at counter contortions of perceived contortions. The source of your mirth is afforded you through warped perceptions no less real than if you were drunk. You're not drinking Saturday afternoons away again are you? I hope someone has your pick ups keys.:smile:

*shrugs* Obvious lies. Can't you spin better than that?

What thermal expansion? The expanse of the oceans can be as simple as adding more water(occams razor) and since water is available for import I just naturally think that it's the direction to think in.

lmao You took water from the north Pacific and put it in the south Pacific and it unbalanced sea levels? You took water out of the Fraser and other rivers and added it to the ocean? Where'd you get the water from that you added to the ocean? And yet sea level is dropping?

 

[darkbeaver]

Sydney Levitus,* John I. Antonov, Timothy P. Boyer, Cathy Stephens
We quantify the interannual-to-decadal variability of the heat content (mean
temperature) of the world ocean from the surface through 3000-meter depth
for the period 1948 to 1998. The heat content of the world ocean increased by
;2 3 1023 joules between the mid-1950s and mid-1990s, representing a
volume mean warming of 0.06¡C. This corresponds to a warming rate of 0.3
watt per meter squared (per unit area of EarthÕs surface). Substantial changes
in heat content occurred in the 300- to 1000-meter layers of each ocean and
in depths greater than 1000 meters of the North Atlantic. The global volume
mean temperature increase for the 0- to 300-meter layer was 0.31¡C, corresponding
to an increase in heat content for this layer of ;1023 joules between
the mid-1950s and mid-1990s. The Atlantic and PaciÞc Oceans have undergone
a net warming since the 1950s and the Indian Ocean has warmed since the
mid-1960s, although the warming is not monotonic.

edit---Guess what the significance of that supposed heat differential would mean divided by the mass of the planet. Its dispersion is certainly not confined to any surface area, there's almost an entire missing dimension for christ sake. Heat is not just generated or dispersed from the surface down.

Nope. Nope. Nope. debunk astrology - Google Search*shrugs* Obvious lies. Can't you spin better than that?



lmao You took water from the north Pacific and put it in the south Pacific and it unbalanced sea levels? You took water out of the Fraser and other rivers and added it to the ocean? Where'd you get the water from that you added to the ocean? And yet sea level is dropping?

Water/mass is importable and it is manufactured right here on earth.

 

[AnnaG]

edit---Guess what the significance of that supposed heat differential would mean divided by the mass of the planet. Its dispersion is certainly not confined to any surface area, there's almost an entire missing dimension for christ sake. Heat is not just generated or dispersed from the surface down.

Nope. Apparently it comes from a hot air vent called darkbeaver. lol

Water/mass is importable and it is manufactured right here on earth.

So where's it going if sea level is dropping. And why did you say that more water is being added? Inconsistency rules in your hypotheses.

 

[Tonington]

edit---Guess what the significance of that supposed heat differential would mean divided by the mass of the planet. Its dispersion is certainly not confined to any surface area, there's almost an entire missing dimension for christ sake. Heat is not just generated or dispersed from the surface down.



Water/mass is importable and it is manufactured right here on earth.

Why would you divide by the mass of the planet? That is unrelated to the heat stored in water, and the resulting expansion of the space those atoms occupy.

They measured the heat stored in the ocean, which is wholly different from the entire planet. Some educational material for you DB, specific heat capacity.

 

[AnnaG]

Temperatures at various depths in oceans:

So if heat isn't dispersed from the surface down, where does it go? It certainly isn't from the bottom up.

 

[Tonington]

Anna, he should have been able to see that from what he quoted. A volume average heating of 0.06°C for the entire ocean, while for the volume closest to the surface that they measured, 0-300m depth, the average heating of this volume was 0.31°C.

The thermal inertia of the oceans represents the longest response time to a forcing. If the surface were left at equilibrium, it doesn't matter what the actual forcing is, it would take nearly a millenium for the entire global ocean to equalize.

You're likely aware of this, I'm sure DB is not

 

[AnnaG]

Anna, he should have been able to see that from what he quoted. A volume average heating of 0.06°C for the entire ocean, while for the volume closest to the surface that they measured, 0-300m depth, the average heating of this volume was 0.31°C.

The thermal inertia of the oceans represents the longest response time to a forcing. If the surface were left at equilibrium, it doesn't matter what the actual forcing is, it would take nearly a millenium for the entire global ocean to equalize.

You're likely aware of this, I'm sure DB is not

Yeah. I mentioned the differences in thermal expansion, rates, densities, etc. in another thread.
He's been reading too much o The Charlie Farquharson Guide to Physics. lol

 

[weaselwords]

The eath is just breathing. Just think of the belch if the greenies get their way & pump CO2 underground.