MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Continents Adrift (Geophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
EndlesslyRocking



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Do continents behave like icebergs? For example, if you lop off the visible portion of an iceberg, the remaining portion of the iceberg will rise. If you (somehow) add more ice to the top of the iceberg, the original portion will sink.

So my question is, are the continents buoyant in whatever it is they are sitting in (mantle or whatever you want to call it)? If so, then we can think of them as floating.

If they are buoyant, then I think you would expect some kind of iceberg behaviour. For example, if you had a continent, and then a big glacier formed on it, the original portion would sink into the mantle or whatever it is floating in. If you had a continent, and then a big glacier melted, the remaining portion would rise.

It is my understanding that this is the way in which continents were originally thought of, like buoyant icebergs floating in whatever it is they are floating in. But then someone came and said that this idea is wrong because everything, continents and mantle, are way too solid to behave like this.

But anyway, let's just play along for now. Suppose the continents do behave like icebergs when their mass changes. Let's say you had two continents connected by an isthmus. The isthmus can be under the water or above the water, I don't think it really matters. Now, on one of the continents a huge glacier forms. On the other continent, no glacier forms. The continent with the glacier would sink. It's possible the isthmus would break, right?

Suppose a similar scenario, two continents are joined by an isthmus. One has a huge glacier and the other doesn't. The glacier starts to melt, and then the continent would start to rise. So it's possible the isthmus would break, I think.

Also, if glaciers formed on only one side of a continent, you could expect the continent to tip slightly, or if it was fragile, to break.

So, in the "suppose the continents behave like icebergs" paradigm, you don't need plates for certain kinds of shifting and breaking.

But is there any plausibility to the iceberg paradigm?

And one other thing, are there other ways for continents to significantly change their mass other than glacier formation or melting?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Do continents behave like icebergs? For example, if you lop off the visible portion of an iceberg, the remaining portion of the iceberg will rise. If you (somehow) add more ice to the top of the iceberg, the original portion will sink.

Continents can be squashed down by having more material dumped on them. Otherwise they would be defying the laws of physics.

So my question is, are the continents buoyant in whatever it is they are sitting in (mantle or whatever you want to call it)? If so, then we can think of them as floating.

Continents do not exist (except in the sense they're the bit above the surface of the sea). There is no mantle. Nothing is floating on anything else.

If they are buoyant, then I think you would expect some kind of iceberg behaviour. For example, if you had a continent, and then a big glacier formed on it, the original portion would sink into the mantle or whatever it is floating in. If you had a continent, and then a big glacier melted, the remaining portion would rise.

This is true but only because of the Laws of Physics. It's a valuable point though because glaciers are the only force that I can think of that can affect landmasses in this way.

It is my understanding that this is the way in which continents were originally thought of, like buoyant icebergs floating in whatever it is they are floating in. But then someone came and said that this idea is wrong because everything, continents and mantle, are way too solid to behave like this.

Until 1960 nobody thought continents were bouyant. After 1960 everybody thought continents were bouyant. Nowadays only Applied Epistemologists think that continents and mantle (to use your phrase) are way too solid to behave like this.

But anyway, let's just play along for now. Suppose the continents do behave like icebergs when their mass changes. Let's say you had two continents connected by an isthmus. The isthmus can be under the water or above the water, I don't think it really matters. Now, on one of the continents a huge glacier forms. On the other continent, no glacier forms. The continent with the glacier would sink. It's possible the isthmus would break, right?

A good thought. Except that the glacier would have to be pretty damned close to have this effect. Continents not being discrete things.

So, in the "suppose the continents behave like icebergs" paradigm, you don't need plates for certain kinds of shifting and breaking.

There are far easier ways. An isthmus is going to be washed away by the rain sooner or later, isn't it? Why wait for a glacier?

And one other thing, are there other ways for continents to significantly change their mass other than glacier formation or melting?

Oh yes...oh Lordy, yes.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Continents do not exist (except in the sense they're the bit above the surface of the sea).

And in the sense that the continental slopes plummet into the abyss. And the composition of the rocks is different. And the dating methods say they are far older. And their magnetisation is different. And... that's all I can think of right now.

There is no mantle. Nothing is floating on anything else.

Except in the sense that even rocks exhibit fluid behaviour. And seismography shows there are discontinuities in Earth's internal structure. And there are gravitational anomalies at the bases of mountains consistent with them having "roots". And... that's all I can think of right now.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

And in the sense that the continental slopes plummet into the abyss.

Nah, they don't. This is an artefact arising from the fact that our minds are absolutely dominated by the vision of continents. You 'see' them every time you look at a map. The deepest point under the sea is almost exactly the same as the highest point on land so the entire surface of the earth can be seen as a continuum.

Once armed with this insight you will have no difficulty 'seeing' that all these 'abyssal plains' are just different surfaces (they are all different depths!), all these 'continental slopes' are just transitions from one surface to another. They occur everywhere but naturally we pick out the (rather few) that occur off the present land surface (especially since the largest one happens to occur in the country that invented modern geography...you'd never have heard of these wretched things if Geography had been invented in, say, Africa)

And the composition of the rocks is different.

It is true that the world is divided into two types of rock:
1) the stuff produced by the earth coming into existence and
2) the stuff produced by weather, animals etc since the earth settled down
so I am prepared to accept that there may be a difference between the very lowest levels and the rest. But even this much seems (if volcanic studies and deep sea mining are anything to go by) extremely doubtful.

And the dating methods say they are far older.

It may well be that 'the deeper, the older' but we all know that the age of rocks (as opposed to the age when they achieved their present form) is a fraught field.

And their magnetisation is different

This is news. As far as I know orthodoxy admits that sea-floor spreading magnetic strips don't occur on land which is fairly ridiculous but I don't think the strips themselves were on 'the abyssal plain'. But in any case the whole question of magnetism is so up-for-grabs that I doubt even orthodoxy (and its running dog, Crisp) would be able to say, "Abyssal: Magnetism A; Non-Abyssal: Magnetism B. But I'll await the cur's reply.

And... that's all I can think of right now.

Keep 'em coming.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is no mantle. Nothing is floating on anything else.

Except in the sense that even rocks exhibit fluid behaviour.

Well, under pressure they would have to to conform with the Laws of Physics and start to liquefy. But if you think that rocks are in any real sense 'fluid' at the depths where the plates are alleged to operate you must have water on the brain.

And seismography shows there are discontinuities in Earth's internal structure.

No. What seismographers report is, "It's 1.005 over here." "Is it really, I'm showing 1.017 over here." "Ooh, that's a continuum if ever I saw one." There is no science here whatsoever.

And there are gravitational anomalies at the bases of mountains consistent with them having "roots".

You mean apart from the anomalies that led to the entire subject of geomorphology (you'll remember the dude in the boat on the Scottish loch)? This is interesting. My guess is that this will cut both ways since there is no reason why Plate Tectonically induced mountains (the only ones of course that orthodoxy recognises) would be gravitationally anomalous. Roots? Why would mountains have roots?..they're supposed to be just common-or-garden plates bashing into one another. In fact, since they're meant to be plates going up rather than subducting, they ought to have less gravity. rather than more. Is this why you call it an anomaly? More on this, please.

And... that's all I can think of right now.

Keep 'em coming.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Nah, they don't. This is an artefact... the entire surface of the earth can be seen as a continuum.

Are you saying there is not a rather consistent and abrupt drop from around 200 m to around 4000 m all the way around the bits that stick up highest? Or that we see a lot of this everywhere, above and below water?

I am prepared to accept that there may be a difference between the very lowest levels and the rest.

There is some indication that continents are a phenomenon, then. Whether you explain them or dismiss them is another matter, but one for the end of the discussion, not the beginning.

But even this much seems (if volcanic studies and deep sea mining are anything to go by) extremely doubtful.

Dinna understand.

It may well be that 'the deeper, the older' but we all know that the age of rocks (as opposed to the age when they achieved their present form) is a fraught field.

Nevertheless, chemical methods, applicable to the formation of the rocks, show a large gap between continental and abyssal ages. It isn't fraught just because you can't get your head around it or don't like what it has to say.

As far as I know orthodoxy admits that sea-floor spreading magnetic strips don't occur on land which is fairly ridiculous

Not if continents are notably different from ocean floors.

but I don't think the strips themselves were on 'the abyssal plain.

You think the mid-ocean ridges are a third kind of 'land'? Anyway, yes, the stripes cover the whole of the ocean floor, symmetrically about the ridges.

I doubt even orthodoxy would be able to say, "Abyssal: Magnetism A; Non-Abyssal: Magnetism B."

No. They say "Ocean floor: striped; Continental: not striped".

Well, under pressure they would have to to conform with the Laws of Physics and start to liquefy.

If it was about liquefying, why are there convoluted rocks with their strata still clearly preserved?

But if you think that rocks are in any real sense 'fluid' at the depths where the plates are alleged to operate you must have water on the brain.

Well, given that the plates are "alleged to operate" from the surface downwards, I don't follow you. Please clarify your assertion and back it up.

No. What seismographers report is, "It's 1.005 over here." "Is it really, I'm showing 1.017 over here." "Ooh, that's a continuum if ever I saw one." There is no science here whatsoever.

I was talking about reflections and 'shadows' from internal interfaces. I dunno what you're talking about.

Roots? Why would mountains have roots?..they're supposed to be just common-or-garden plates bashing into one another. In fact, since they're meant to be plates going up rather than subducting, they ought to have less gravity. rather than more. Is this why you call it an anomaly? More on this, please.

The Royal Society Christmas Lecture demo had something like ping-pong balls floating on water, pushed from one end. On the far side of the tank, they didn't move, but at the front where they pile up, they also push down: the floating layer gets thicker, suggesting that mountains should project downwards about as much as they do up. (Witness the same when pouring cream onto an Irish coffee.) And since the mountains are made of the lighter material, there is actually less mass underneath them than there "should be", which causes a measurable sideways deflection of the force of gravity next to the mountains.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Are you saying there is not a rather consistent and abrupt drop from around 200 m to around 4000 m all the way around the bits that stick up highest? Or that we see a lot of this everywhere, above and below water?

I am completely denying it. Shelves are the exception rather than the rule. Of course, by definition, everywhere will have a piece of land going from 200m to 4000m but since everywhere is different I decline to give them special names.

Not that I'm particularly averse to shelves per se, since my theories rather require them whereas Plate Tectonics doesn't. (It just incorporates them because they had been established by the previous hydrostatic paradigm.)

I am prepared to accept that there may be a difference between the very lowest levels and the rest.

There is some indication that continents are a phenomenon, then. Whether you explain them or dismiss them is another matter, but one for the end of the discussion, not the beginning.

This doesn't follow wherever you put it in the discussion since even if the very lowest levels are different in kind, all the other levels are not and only the topmost of them are 'continents', to use your rather curious phraseology. So I decline to give them any other name than "bits that happen to be above the present surface of the world-ocean".

But even this much seems (if volcanic studies and deep sea mining are anything to go by) extremely doubtful.

Dinna understand.

Well, everything that comes out of volcanoes or scraping the sea-floor is perfectly familiar geology. Do you know of a single substance that could be called 'abyssal' or 'earth-original' or anything at all that suggests there is (just for instance) a mantle and a non-mantle? Go on.. one unique substance would be a start.

Nevertheless, chemical methods, applicable to the formation of the rocks, show a large gap between continental and abyssal ages. It isn't fraught just because you can't get your head around it or don't like what it has to say.

But I have conceded it. As you know, SCUM requires there to be a difference. My 'fraught' thought is produced by my (apparently unique) insight that all rocks are the same age though some have acquired their present manifestation more recently than others.

As far as I know orthodoxy admits that sea-floor spreading magnetic strips don't occur on land which is fairly ridiculous

Not if continents are notably different from ocean floors
.

Ah but they are not, even orthodoxy concedes that. They may exempt the abyssal plain but most of the sea-floor is just common or garden plate-covered-by-water. [In fact, whisper it, the abyssal plain doesn't really fit in with plates, does it? We are here again in the territory of two paradigms clashing, I think you'll find.]

You think the mid-ocean ridges are a third kind of 'land'? Anyway, yes, the stripes cover the whole of the ocean floor, symmetrically about the ridges.

No, dear, they found them once, in one place, and not very deep (near the Azores, was it?) and built a whole academic subject on them. Perhaps you or anybody else can tell me if they've found any more. And if so, where.

I know they haven't found any on the 'ridges' on land which are, in plate theory, just as common as under the sea but I'll bet they're pretty rare under the sea too. Of course the theory demands magnetic strips at every plate boundary (even subducting ones) but I suppose that's too much to ask. Still we have several hundred thousand miles of official plate boundary so I expect a few ought to have been cobbled together by now. They are rather important to the whole of the Earth Sciences after all..

I doubt even orthodoxy would be able to say, "Abyssal: Magnetism A; Non-Abyssal: Magnetism B."

No. They say "Ocean floor: striped; Continental: not striped".

The only stripes they've ever found happen to be under the sea but that is not the same thing at all.

Well, under pressure they would have to to conform with the Laws of Physics and start to liquefy.

If it was about liquefying, why are there convoluted rocks with their strata still clearly preserved?

Liquifying rocks would not retain their strata, would they? Rocks under differential pressure (my theory) would.

But if you think that rocks are in any real sense 'fluid' at the depths where the plates are alleged to operate you must have water on the brain.

Well, given that the plates are "alleged to operate" from the surface downwards, I don't follow you. Please clarify your assertion and back it up.

Look, the plates are remarkably thin. The mantle goes down...what...fifty, a hundred miles? Rock does not liquefy at these depths. That's why the latest theory is all about how there's steam down there to provide lubrication. And all this when we're talking about one lot of rocks 'floating' on another lot of rocks that even orthodoxy concede are only fractionally different in overall density. The whole business would be laughed out of court if it wasn't taught everywhere as being self-evidently true.
Send private message
EndlesslyRocking



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
So my question is, are the continents buoyant in whatever it is they are sitting in (mantle or whatever you want to call it)? If so, then we can think of them as floating.

Continents do not exist (except in the sense they're the bit above the surface of the sea). There is no mantle. Nothing is floating on anything else.

So, for clarification, there was never any Pangea? The continents are fixed rocks sticking out of the ocean, the way most children imagine them to be.

It is my understanding that this is the way in which continents were originally thought of, like buoyant icebergs floating in whatever it is they are floating in. But then someone came and said that this idea is wrong because everything, continents and mantle, are way too solid to behave like this.

Until 1960 nobody thought continents were bouyant. After 1960 everybody thought continents were bouyant. Nowadays only Applied Epistemologists think that continents and mantle (to use your phrase) are way too solid to behave like this.

Sorry, I got mixed up with was basically the plate theory before anything was called a "plate".

And one other thing, are there other ways for continents to significantly change their mass other than glacier formation or melting?

Oh yes...oh Lordy, yes.

From meteorites and volcanoes?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Of course, by definition, everywhere will have a piece of land going from 200m to 4000m but since everywhere is different I decline to give them special names.

You're avoiding the issue. The edge is mostly pinpointed to 146 metres; a figure attributed to some previous Ice Age sea level, which is compatible with your theory. But the Slope is also consistently much steeper than the Shelf. And there is another discontinuity where the Slope meets the Rise, like a scree slope. Whatever the explanation, I think the phenomenon of the Continental Shelves has to be acknowledged.

So I decline to give them any other name than "bits that happen to be above the present surface of the world-ocean".

I don't follow. And if you "am prepared to accept that there may be a difference between the very lowest levels and the rest", you can't just blow them off without explaining how this difference turns out not to matter.

my (apparently unique) insight that all rocks are the same age though some have acquired their present manifestation more recently than others.

So much for SCUM requiring there to be a difference, then.

(Let's say all water molecules are the same age: the condensation on your window still only formed half an hour ago.)

Ah but they are not, even orthodoxy concedes that [continents are not notably different from ocean floors]. They may exempt the abyssal plain but most of the sea-floor is just common or garden plate-covered-by-water. [In fact, whisper it, the abyssal plain doesn't really fit in with plates, does it? We are here again in the territory of two paradigms clashing, I think you'll find].

We have exceeded the limits of someone's knowledge -- is it yours or mine? What are you talking about?

No, dear, they found them once, in one place, and not very deep (near the Azores, was it?) and built a whole academic subject on them. Perhaps you or anybody else can tell me if they've found any more. And if so, where.

The detailed charts most readily turned up on the internet are for the mid-Atlantic and west coast America, but charts of overall age (not the same but related) for the whole crust are readily available.

I know they haven't found any on the 'ridges' on land which are, in plate theory, just as common as under the sea

There are no mid-ocean ridges on land: in plate theory, continents are different from ocean floors and are not magnetically striped.

Of course the theory demands magnetic strips at every plate boundary (even subducting ones)

No, in general, they're only parallel with mid-ocean ridges; alignment anywhere else is... whatever. You really don't get this PT thing, do you?
Send private message
Tatjana


In: exiled in Germany
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is a perfectly satisfactory explanation for Continental drift and how it came about.

http://www.220.ro/Ice_Age_Scrat_in_Gone_Nutty-23565.html
_________________
-Gory at thasp, keener fortha karabd-
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So, for clarification, there was never any Pangea?

I think even orthodox PT-ists must be embarrassed (if they have any shame at all) at the fact that everyone believes in the physical reality of Pangea even though it was always only a back-of-an-envelope illustration of a general principle. Such is the power of maps as mandalas that we all vaguely think that some ancient Captain Cook must have sailed round it mapping its every cape. We all have such a firm picture in our mind. But no it never existed.

The continents are fixed rocks sticking out of the ocean, the way most children imagine them to be.

Yup. But different bits stick out from time to time...it's complicated. In a horribly simple way.

It is my understanding that this is the way in which continents were originally thought of, like buoyant icebergs floating in whatever it is they are floating in. But then someone came and said that this idea is wrong because everything, continents and mantle, are way too solid to behave like this.

No form of continental drift was considered respectable before 1960. It's a fact that a theory that was thought of as silly by everyone became, in a few short years, self-evidently true to everyone. And all because of the magnetic stripes (and some AE stuff that I won't bore you with).

From meteorites and volcanoes?

No, AE is not keen on big, noisy things. Though of course as a Prime Mover Theory it has to explain volcanoes.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Of course, by definition, everywhere will have a piece of land going from 200m to 4000m but since everywhere is different I decline to give them special names

You're avoiding the issue. The edge is mostly pinpointed to 146 metres; a figure attributed to some previous Ice Age sea level, which is compatible with your theory. But the Slope is also consistently much steeper than the Shelf. And there is another discontinuity where the Slope meets the Rise, like a scree slope. Whatever the explanation, I think the phenomenon of the Continental Shelves has to be acknowledged.

The 'science' of oceanography is at that characteristic age of all new academic subjects -- just enough data to spin hypotheses, not enough to demolish them. In other words it can be used to buttress any paradigm. However, what you have to ask yourself is, 'Does oceanography negate the idea that the subterranean world is essentially only a drowned version of the above-sea world.' But even if it does, there's so much leeway that can be covered by the all purpose cry of 'erosion over aeons of time' (this time being used by us rather than them) that your arguments are nugatory.

So I decline to give them any other name than "bits that happen to be above the present surface of the world-ocean.

I don't follow. And if you are "prepared to accept that there may be a difference between the very lowest levels and the rest", you can't just blow them off without explaining how this difference turns out not to matter.

I meant it doesn't matter in terms of whether the argument is valid or not. Strictly speaking SLOT/SCUM requires an abyssal plain much more than Plate Tectonic Theory does.

my (apparently unique) insight that all rocks are the same age though some have acquired their present manifestation more recently than others

So much for SCUM requiring there to be a difference, then. (Let's say all water molecules are the same age: the condensation on your window still only formed half an hour ago.)

Exactly, Dan, you're such a genius! Measuring the age of the water molecules gives highly misleading results in terms of when the condensation occurred. And vice versa. I am saying that geology has trodden with great circumspection (aka careful ignoral) when saying exactly what is being measured.

No, dear, they found them once, in one place, and not very deep (near the Azores, was it?) and built a whole academic subject on them. Perhaps you or anybody else can tell me if they've found any more. And if so, where

The detailed charts most readily turned up on the internet are for the mid-Atlantic and west coast America, but charts of overall age (not the same but related) for the whole crust are readily available.


Come off it, Dan, you know perfectly well you are tacitly conceding my argument here. 'Not the same but related' -- that's one for the AE scrapbook.

Of course the theory demands magnetic strips at every plate boundary (even subducting ones

No, in general, they're only parallel with mid-ocean ridges; alignment anywhere else is... whatever.

This is quite absurd. The stuff bubbling up has no idea whether it happens to be underwater or not, just as it doesn't know which way the pole is pointing. So it should happen on land as it does under the ocean. And of course every (alleged) plate movement, subducting, separating or merely shearing, must require some filler from beneath if we're not to have bleedin' great holes everywhere and I don't mean 'Ooh look, a crack in the Pacific Highway...that's Asia separating from America that is.' So magnetic strips ought to be everywhere. But they ain't. They're nowheresville. They're a classic case of a Paradigm Buster that made a prediction and we're still waiting for it. And, as you know, the waiting will go on until the Paradigm is busted once more because orthodoxy never puts a time limit -- or any disprovable feature -- when they make these kinds of predictions.

Oh and in case you were wondering, SLOT predicts magnetic stripes in oceans that have suddenly increased in size, like the Atlantic.

You really don't get this PT thing, do you?

Well, I think of myself as the world's leading authority on Plate Tectonics (since I understand it sociologically as well as technically) but you say I don't get it all. I don't think it's possible to be wider apart than that!
Send private message
EndlesslyRocking



View user's profile
Reply with quote

EndlesslyRocking wrote:
Mick Harper wrote:
And one other thing, are there other ways for continents to significantly change their mass other than glacier formation or melting?

Oh yes...oh Lordy, yes.

From meteorites and volcanoes?

Mick Harper wrote:
No, AE is not keen on big, noisy things. Though of course as a Prime Mover Theory it has to explain volcanoes.

What about the poles shifting?

I was watching this video http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-3458671439316889563&q=source:013768295494835559486&hl=nl
It's about Edgar Cayce. He predicts that the poles are going to shift sometime soon, and that the coastlines and mountains will move about.

Maybe pole shifting is what caused the great flood in Gilgamesh - or does Fomenko say that Gilgamesh is made up? Cayce also thought that the Nile used to run the other way. Maybe it did, and it started moving the other way at the time of the flood.

Edgar Cayce also predicted that sometime in 1968/1969, part of Atlantis was supposed to rise. That didn't happen, but that was when Bimini road was discovered - it could be mashed in to fit his prediction.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is a tricky area for us since we are supposed to reject mystics like Cayce qua mystics but recognise as potentially useful the work he and his followers do. This is because though mysticism is irrational it can (and often does) lead to quite rational revisionist thinking. However you may take it as axiomatic that nothing we do is taken from anybody else, it has to be mint-fresh, straight off the brainwaves.

In other words, you can't just lob Cayce (or even Fomenko) into the ring and say, "Get a load of that then." If you wanna fillet Cayce and decide you like something he says, ie take it on board as a belief of yours, then you can lob that belief at us and say, "Get a load of that then."

PS Always remember, Cayce is now an orthodoxy like any other.
Send private message
EndlesslyRocking



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Here's a picture of the evolution of the continents: pangaea until now.

http://www.geocities.com/mudsmeller/maps/pangea-to-present.gif

It looks like Africa is more or less fixed in the middle, and some continents have moved north, some south, some east, some west.

So is this why tectonic plates were proposed? The force can't be external, because an external force couldn't cause things to move in all directions. Unless it was an explosion of some kind. But if it was an explosion, then they would not keep moving.

How could there be a force that pushes some things north of Africa (or whatever the origin is), some south, some west, and some east?

This just kind of struck me as nonsense tonight.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Jump to:  
Page 4 of 6

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group