Turtle Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 alright turtle, enough with the derogotory comments, if you cannot at least understand what i said and show a decent argument against, then please refrain from cutting down my statements i'll comment as i please. write something that is understandable and has an actual bearing on factual science and i'll comment positively. as it is you appear either incapable or unwilling to do that. i can and will cut down pseudo-scientific idiotic babble at every opportunity. hypography is science for everybody, not bullshit for anybody. i will spell it out for you since the added weight of the ice that is frozen on top of tectonic plates, causes them to sublimate ... if you know how to read and use a dictionary, get one and look up 'sublimate'. then, if you have the slightest bit of reasoning ability, you may see that your sentence is meaningless as far as geology -or geography- is concerned. as if any of your posts are meaningfull. good grief. Moontanman and JMJones0424 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted July 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 if you know how to read and use a dictionary, get one and look up 'sublimate'. then, if you have the slightest bit of reasoning ability, you may see that your sentence is meaningless as far as geology -or geography- is concerned. as if any of your posts are meaningfull. good grief. funny thing is i did use the online dictionary ok when there are 2 tectonic plates next to eachother one is under the other one is on top of the other at the lines of connction like a puzzle the dynamics of this interaction along with the melting of the ice caps, definately has potential to change the leverage invilved with the balance consider the different bouyency of plates a liile change in this could mean alot or at least enough to cause an earthquaake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 alright turtle, enough with the derogotory comments, if you cannot at least understand what i said and show a decent argument against, then please refrain from cutting down my statements i will spell it out for yousince the added weight of the ice that is frozen on top of tectonic plates, causes them to sublimatethen as the ice melts, they rise back upwith the ways the plates interact with eachother, as the ice melts, this leverage action must have an effect on the other platestherefore releasing built up pressure, and causing earthquakesor increasing pressure on one plate and releasing pressure on a plate next to itAny failure to comprehend your statements, belovelife, seems to me to be more likely due to your inability to spell, use basic grammar, and form coherent statements. As Turtle has already stated, the ice cap over the North pole is floating on the Arctic Ocean. When things float on a liquid, the weight of the floating thing displaces an equivalent weight of liquid. The melting of the icecap in the North pole has no change on the weight felt by the tectonic plate underneath. The melting of the glaciers over the North American continent did result in less weight on a tectonic plate resulting in a measurable post-glacial rebound. Moontanman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted July 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 what about the antactic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted July 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 and iceland, and greenland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 funny thing is i did use the online dictionary ok when there are 2 tectonic plates next to eachother one is under the other one is on top of the other at the lines of connction like a puzzle the dynamics of this interaction along with the melting of the ice caps, definately has potential to change the leverage invilved with the balance consider the different bouyency of plates a liile change in this could mean alot or at least enough to cause an earthquaake dude; stop posting this idiotic crap to our board. i don't care whether it's intentional or if you don't have the wherewithal to write or think at a third grade level. you damn well understand "stop"! JMJones0424 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted July 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 your negativity is not futhering the discussion you comment on the arctic floating on the water does please make useful comments more than degrading commentsthe more degrading comments you make, the less i learn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blaine71274 Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) Ok, so here we go. Clear speculation. My hypothesis is that as creatures moved to land, the land gets heavier, yes heavier, as far as mass is concerned. So if you believe that we are in fact on a maleable dirt ball in space, then that dirt ball has to stay ballanced in a vaccum, like a bubble. Visually right now, the continents are evenly dispersed. Distribution of weight I think has a lot to do with where land goes and how it acts, causing earthquakes to evoke movement. If you've ever blown a bubble, then another and they meet, what happens? They merge and adjust. You can even see swirls of rainbows acting like clouds on the surface. Try it. A mini climate? In order to keep the even mass and spin, then Earth has to adjust. Land mass mobility is how that's done. Volcanoes and Erthquakes are a byproduct of that. As far as ice age? What if there were no ice age. What if the land merely moved through a climate? What if the claciers were not receding, but the lands were? I'm sure I'll get a lot of comments. But be nice, it's science. We create questions to be answered and explored. Now, here's the kicker, how does world trade play into all of that. Can we predict quakes based on how much weight and mass is displace and moved? If mass is a constant, then we need to pay attention to where it is, has been, and where it's going or where it's from. Please forgive spelling and typos, I type as fast as thoughts come. After all, correct grammar is not really a measure of intelligence. Never has been. Edited August 5, 2012 by blaine71274 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 My hypothesis is that as creatures moved to land, the land gets heavier, yes heavier, as far as mass is concerned... Out of curiosity, what evidence have you put together to support your hypothesis? Gathering evidence... that's science too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blaine71274 Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 Out of curiosity, what evidence have you put together to support your hypothesis? Gathering evidence... that's science too. Science of evolution and natural selection 101. It stands to reason that if you have a land mass that is empty, then add a reproductive element to it, it would increase the mass. Alot of science is posing a question and asking why, not just stating facts that we already know or think we know. And sometimes you don't have to answer your own questions. Someone else might be better suited for that. For a great time the Earth was considered flat and the center of the universe until someone thought maybe not so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted August 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 ok, so for that to work, forst of all, the animals would have to get most of their mass from the ocean, and then move to land, and it would have to be a massive movement over thousands of years, or mabe millions of yeas, effectively bringing the mass from the ocean to land, then when the creatures die on land, the mass stays there --------------------- now *** far as tectonic plate movement if you look at the fluid behavior in space, i think it was rocket art who provided the visualization it lines up with what blain##### was talking about the dispersion of mass in the continental crust definatly has everything to do with tectonic plate movement now take the antarctic ice melting for an example then take leverage into account finally take the visualization that rocket art provided as far as answers goes, it would be obvious, as far as questions go, how would be able to more accuratly predict the effect, ad whre earthquakes would be( find center of mass map entire planets crust go from there? )sounds difficult Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.