Invite To Partricipate In The Forums From Monitors

[Cold-co]

Modest:

I am very disappointed that you chose to close "Global Warming -- an inside job," right in the middle of a discussion between myself and Moontanman. I understand you have an animosity toward this subject matter, but I had just answered a question from him and was interested in his response.

"Fools act on imagination without knowledge, pedants act on knowledge without imagination." -- Alfred North Whitehead, English philosopher and Mathematician (1861-1947)

[modest]

The thread probably should have been closed before it got as far along as it did.

 

You must understand, the previous two threads on the topic had hundreds of posts and got nowhere. There was a wide consensus on closing the topic. I would add that you were a member of that consensus, saying "Now, we have beaten this problem into the ground and it appears we will never come to any agreement, so I suggest the monitors erase this thread and terminate further discussion."

 

I don't see anything new in your new thread, and it is a general policy here at Hypography not to open new threads of the same specific topic which had already been run into the ground and closed. I will, however, report your concern to the rest of the moderators. If any moderator wishes the topic reopened then we will open it. Also, if Moontanman expresses a wish to reply to your last post then I'll be sure it is posted there.

 

~modest

[Cold-co]

The thread probably should have been closed before it got as far along as it did.

 

You must understand, the previous two threads on the topic had hundreds of posts and got nowhere. There was a wide consensus on closing the topic. I would add that you were a member of that consensus, saying "Now, we have beaten this problem into the ground and it appears we will never come to any agreement, so I suggest the monitors erase this thread and terminate further discussion."

 

I don't see anything new in your new thread, and it is a general policy here at Hypography not to open new threads of the same specific topic which had already been run into the ground and closed. I will, however, report your concern to the rest of the moderators. If any moderator wishes the topic reopened then we will open it. Also, if Moontanman expresses a wish to reply to your last post then I'll be sure it is posted there.

 

~modest

 

I want to thank all who participated in the original discussion. Your inputs corrected my original mathematics and changed my way of thinking about the flattening equation. I now believe the geodesists used an ideal world equation, because they did not consider real world constraints. We were exposed to ideal world equations in Physics 101. We were told to ignore friction on a block sliding down an inclined plane. That made the textbook solution easier, but arrived at the wrong conclusion. Geodesists did the same with their flattening equation, they ignored the effects of surface tension and physical bonding in solids. The lithosphere is a tensionally strong rocky layer, whose tensile strength would have to be overcome before flattening can take place. Instead, they used a hydrostatic model and avoided addressing the tensile strength of rock. But this leads to the question I am asking; a cubic centimeter of a liquid attracts its neighboring cubic centimeter with a force that can be calculated using Newton's universal gravitational equation. That force produces a pulling together of cubic centimeters of liquid, but it is ignored in the flattening equation. Should it not be considered?

 

My rework of the mathematics I used is located at http://members.cox.net/nchristianson3/part0.ppt