The continents around Africa have to get
pushed in many directions and opposite directions.
If there is one source why is there different
directions?

IF they get pushed back and forth they would
tend to not travel by cancel.

If drift is happening now and that will
cause the continents to come together
on the other side of the Earth how can they get
pushed opposite in drift and start over...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

The continents around Africa have to get
pushed in many directions and opposite directions.
If there is one source why is there different
directions?

IF they get pushed back and forth they would
tend to not travel by cancel.

If drift is happening now and that will
cause the continents to come together
on the other side of the Earth how can they get
pushed opposite in drift and start over...

Asked many and answered many times but you are too stupid to
understand the answer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/29/2023 5:08 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

The continents around Africa have to get
pushed in many directions and opposite directions.
If there is one source why is there different
directions?

Different convection currents, Roy Masters Jr.

IF they get pushed back and forth they would
tend to not travel by cancel.

What does that gibberish mean?

If drift is happening now and that will
cause the continents to come together
on the other side of the Earth

New Pangaea or NewPangaea or something.

how can they get
pushed opposite in drift and start over...

Once a convection current starts underneath it and starts splitting it
up. Just like all the times before that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 3:46:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

On 8/29/2023 5:08 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

The continents around Africa have to get
pushed in many directions and opposite directions.
If there is one source why is there different
directions?

Different convection currents, Roy Masters Jr.

What can make the same current different
for different push directions?

IF they get pushed back and forth they would
tend to not travel by cancel.

What does that gibberish mean?

If you say that get pushed back and forth
they don't go anywhere.

If drift is happening now and that will
cause the continents to come together
on the other side of the Earth

New Pangaea or NewPangaea or something.

how can they get
pushed opposite in drift and start over...

Once a convection current starts underneath it and starts splitting it
up. Just like all the times before that.

How does the current start over in an opposite direction?

No. That has never happened. The continents have
always been where they are.

Mitchell Raemsch

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:08:35 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

The continents around Africa have to get
pushed in many directions and opposite directions.
If there is one source why is there different
directions?

IF they get pushed back and forth they would
tend to not travel by cancel.

If drift is happening now and that will
cause the continents to come together
on the other side of the Earth how can they get
pushed opposite in drift and start over...

Green Moon Two:
I do think it is possible that Pangaea was a second moon, say M2.
As a moon comes dragged into its planet its elliptical trajectory will be dragged into a circular path. This effect would be small, and the process would be quite a long time coming. The idea of a gentle touchdown of two spheres is quite extraordinary.
But if the continental tectonics are the result of such a landing then are we simply witnessing the settling out of this profound accretion event? Could fossil fuel deposits in extraordinary locations mean anything extra? When would it have happened? If
it's all going to erode into the ocean then we'll wish we were fish again.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:08:35 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

The continents around Africa have to get
pushed in many directions and opposite directions.
If there is one source why is there different
directions?

IF they get pushed back and forth they would
tend to not travel by cancel.

If drift is happening now and that will
cause the continents to come together
on the other side of the Earth how can they get
pushed opposite in drift and start over...

Green Moon Two:
I do think it is possible that Pangaea was a second moon, say M2.
As a moon comes dragged into its planet its elliptical trajectory will be dragged into a circular path. This effect would be small, and the process would be quite a long time coming. The idea of a gentle touchdown of two spheres is quite extraordinary.

But if the continental tectonics are the result of such a landing then are we simply witnessing the settling out of this profound accretion event? Could fossil fuel deposits in extraordinary locations mean anything extra? When would it have happened? If
it's all going to erode into the ocean then we'll wish we were fish again.


The idea of a gentle touchdown of two spheres is utter nonsense.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:08:35 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

The continents around Africa have to get
pushed in many directions and opposite directions.
If there is one source why is there different
directions?

IF they get pushed back and forth they would
tend to not travel by cancel.

If drift is happening now and that will
cause the continents to come together
on the other side of the Earth how can they get
pushed opposite in drift and start over...

Green Moon Two:
I do think it is possible that Pangaea was a second moon, say M2.
As a moon comes dragged into its planet its elliptical trajectory will be dragged into a circular path. This effect would be small, and the process would be quite a long time coming. The idea of a gentle touchdown of two spheres is quite

extraordinary. But if the continental tectonics are the result of such a landing then are we simply witnessing the settling out of this profound accretion event? Could fossil fuel deposits in extraordinary locations mean anything extra? When would it
have happened? If it's all going to erode into the ocean then we'll wish we were fish again.

The idea of a gentle touchdown of two spheres is utter nonsense.

Well, suppose a satellite were in an elliptical orbit initially, and that it is already experiencing atmospheric drag during part of its orbit. The action of the drag would bring it into a more circular orbit wouldn't it? At any rate, the descent, given
that it is already in orbit, would be gradual, and especially for a satellite of considerable momentum, then the drag effect will be more slight and so this gradualistic argument could hold up. At first touch of M2 to Earth won't the interface be liquid
water? Perhaps a grind of a sort must bring things into tidal lock if this process were to work out, so I'll concede that 'gentle' is going too far. Still, we know that there are geostationary orbits, and the planar nature of the solar system is nicely
understood to be compatible with that:

"A geostationary orbit, also referred to as a geosynchronous equatorial orbit[a] (GEO), is a circular geosynchronous orbit 35,786 km (22,236 mi) in altitude above Earth's equator, 42,164 km (26,199 mi) in radius from Earth's center, and following the
direction of Earth's rotation.
An object in such an orbit has an orbital period equal to Earth's rotational period, one sidereal day, and so to ground observers it appears motionless, in a fixed position in the sky. The concept of a geostationary orbit was popularised by the science
fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke in the 1940s as a way to revolutionise telecommunications, and the first satellite to be placed in this kind of orbit was launched in 1963." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

It looks as though we'd be quibbling over four thousand miles of retro action, possibly with an answer in the eccentricity problem
As well, in the case of a large enough M2, the treatment of the Earth as a static may be invalid; meaning that the center of mass of the system is a function of both M2 and Earth, if M2 was large enough. Enough heat to melt a snowball Earth even, eh? But
whether it could be done gently: I think there would or could be a recurring event of accretion, leading to an M3 as well. As the solar system settles, larger and larger accretion events take place, generally speaking, simply because initially the
accretion events were of smaller smithereenes of a prior star gone supernova, supposedly.

Here is some support on the eccentricity argument: "Aerodynamic forces (drag atmospheric friction, opposite to the velocity vector, and lift, perpendicular to the velocity vector). They are proportional to the density, and therefore more relevant in low
Earth Orbits, at the perigee, as density decreases exponentially with altitude. This effect (mainly drag) reduces the energy of the orbit and therefore produces the reduction of the apogee height, reducing the eccentricity (orbital decay). "
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/atmospheric-drag

I suppose a last resort for support of such a thing would be to pry upon the three body problem and whether M1 could play a part too.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:08:35 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

The continents around Africa have to get
pushed in many directions and opposite directions.
If there is one source why is there different
directions?

IF they get pushed back and forth they would
tend to not travel by cancel.

If drift is happening now and that will
cause the continents to come together
on the other side of the Earth how can they get
pushed opposite in drift and start over...

Green Moon Two:
I do think it is possible that Pangaea was a second moon, say M2.
As a moon comes dragged into its planet its elliptical trajectory will be dragged into a circular path. This effect would be small, and the process would be quite a long time coming. The idea of a gentle touchdown of two spheres is quite

extraordinary. But if the continental tectonics are the result of such a landing then are we simply witnessing the settling out of this profound accretion event? Could fossil fuel deposits in extraordinary locations mean anything extra? When would it
have happened? If it's all going to erode into the ocean then we'll wish we were fish again.

The idea of a gentle touchdown of two spheres is utter nonsense.

Well, suppose a satellite were in an elliptical orbit initially, and that it is already experiencing atmospheric drag during part of its orbit. The action of the drag would bring it into a more circular orbit wouldn't it?

Maybe, but irrelevant.

A low Earth orbit has an altitude of about 1,200 miles and a velocity of
about 17,000 mph.

Where do you think all that actual and potential energy is going to go
other than in making a big hole?

<snip remainder>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 9:31:09 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:08:35 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

The continents around Africa have to get
pushed in many directions and opposite directions.
If there is one source why is there different
directions?

IF they get pushed back and forth they would
tend to not travel by cancel.

If drift is happening now and that will
cause the continents to come together
on the other side of the Earth how can they get
pushed opposite in drift and start over...

Green Moon Two:
I do think it is possible that Pangaea was a second moon, say M2.
As a moon comes dragged into its planet its elliptical trajectory will be dragged into a circular path. This effect would be small, and the process would be quite a long time coming. The idea of a gentle touchdown of two spheres is quite

extraordinary. But if the continental tectonics are the result of such a landing then are we simply witnessing the settling out of this profound accretion event? Could fossil fuel deposits in extraordinary locations mean anything extra? When would it
have happened? If it's all going to erode into the ocean then we'll wish we were fish again.

The idea of a gentle touchdown of two spheres is utter nonsense.

Well, suppose a satellite were in an elliptical orbit initially, and that it is already experiencing atmospheric drag during part of its orbit. The action of the drag would bring it into a more circular orbit wouldn't it?

Maybe, but irrelevant.

A low Earth orbit has an altitude of about 1,200 miles and a velocity of about 17,000 mph.

Where do you think all that actual and potential energy is going to go
other than in making a big hole?

<snip remainder>

What about Africa? Is the center of Pangea drifting?
and in what direction jim?
No. None of the continents are drifting.
They are where they formed.
How could Africa be an exception jim?


Mitchell Raemsch

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip old orbital reentry stuff>

What about Africa? Is the center of Pangea drifting?

Pangea broke up about 200,000,000 years ago, moron.

and in what direction jim?
No. None of the continents are drifting.A

The evidence is estensive, moron.

They are where they formed.

Nope, moron.

How could Africa be an exception jim?

No one other than you says Africa is an exception to anything, moron.


And again, this has been explained to you several times but you are too blazingly stupid to understand any of it, moron.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 12:31:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:08:35 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

The continents around Africa have to get
pushed in many directions and opposite directions.
If there is one source why is there different
directions?

IF they get pushed back and forth they would
tend to not travel by cancel.

If drift is happening now and that will
cause the continents to come together
on the other side of the Earth how can they get
pushed opposite in drift and start over...

Green Moon Two:
I do think it is possible that Pangaea was a second moon, say M2.
As a moon comes dragged into its planet its elliptical trajectory will be dragged into a circular path. This effect would be small, and the process would be quite a long time coming. The idea of a gentle touchdown of two spheres is quite

extraordinary. But if the continental tectonics are the result of such a landing then are we simply witnessing the settling out of this profound accretion event? Could fossil fuel deposits in extraordinary locations mean anything extra? When would it
have happened? If it's all going to erode into the ocean then we'll wish we were fish again.

The idea of a gentle touchdown of two spheres is utter nonsense.

Well, suppose a satellite were in an elliptical orbit initially, and that it is already experiencing atmospheric drag during part of its orbit. The action of the drag would bring it into a more circular orbit wouldn't it?

Maybe, but irrelevant.

A low Earth orbit has an altitude of about 1,200 miles and a velocity of about 17,000 mph.

"Specifically, Earth rotates faster at the Equator than it does at the poles. Earth is wider at the Equator, so to make a rotation in one 24-hour period, equatorial regions race nearly 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) per hour." - google

Where do you think all that actual and potential energy is going to go
other than in making a big hole?

<snip remainder>

Hmmm.... maybe you are right. That 4000 mile figure must have been off. None the less, As a violent process the supposed M2 would proceed in its circular trajectory; dragging itself down as it whips up more and more drag. Is that enough to reduce the
oxides? I was really hoping for big long necked dinosaurs that were in a low gravity environment on a jungle M2 subplanet somehow being shuttled to Earth. Instead this is turning into a sort of mash that would leave no record. Thanks Jim for you thought
and feedback. This is the best falsification that I've seen yet. Pretty simple so I should have been onto it myself.

Now I see that the Earth is travelling at 67000mph around the sun. Is there no way to get a natural gentle landing? It sure would confuse the geological record, wouldn't it? You'd have the accretion of a moon essentially sandwiched on top of the
accretions of the Earth; you'd have some dense stuff there as well that arguably should have settled to the core long ago. You'd have long term settling; actual kinetic energy; something that would cause a lot of plate tectonics.

Pangaea Again!
We are citizens of the world.
Greetings Fellow Earthlings.
Take you nationalism and stuff it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 12:31:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote: >> >> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:08:35 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

The continents around Africa have to get
pushed in many directions and opposite directions.
If there is one source why is there different
directions?

IF they get pushed back and forth they would
tend to not travel by cancel.

If drift is happening now and that will
cause the continents to come together
on the other side of the Earth how can they get
pushed opposite in drift and start over...

Green Moon Two:
I do think it is possible that Pangaea was a second moon, say M2.
As a moon comes dragged into its planet its elliptical trajectory will be dragged into a circular path. This effect would be small, and the process would be quite a long time coming. The idea of a gentle touchdown of two spheres is quite

extraordinary. But if the continental tectonics are the result of such a landing then are we simply witnessing the settling out of this profound accretion event? Could fossil fuel deposits in extraordinary locations mean anything extra? When would it
have happened? If it's all going to erode into the ocean then we'll wish we were fish again.

The idea of a gentle touchdown of two spheres is utter nonsense.

Well, suppose a satellite were in an elliptical orbit initially, and that it is already experiencing atmospheric drag during part of its orbit. The action of the drag would bring it into a more circular orbit wouldn't it?

Maybe, but irrelevant.

A low Earth orbit has an altitude of about 1,200 miles and a velocity of
about 17,000 mph.

"Specifically, Earth rotates faster at the Equator than it does at the poles. Earth is wider at the Equator, so to make a rotation in one 24-hour period, equatorial regions race nearly 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) per hour." - google

Which has little to nothing to do with what happens when an object falls
from space.

Where do you think all that actual and potential energy is going to go
other than in making a big hole?

<snip remainder>

Hmmm.... maybe you are right. That 4000 mile figure must have been off. None the less, As a violent process the supposed M2 would proceed in its circular trajectory; dragging itself down as it whips up more and more drag. Is that enough to reduce the

oxides?

It is enough to cause a 200 foot rock to explode with a force greater
than 10 megatons. Anything even a fraction of the Moon's size would
devastate all of Earth.

I was really hoping for big long necked dinosaurs that were in a low gravity environment on a jungle M2 subplanet somehow being shuttled to Earth. Instead this is turning into a sort of mash that would leave no record. Thanks Jim for you thought and

feedback. This is the best falsification that I've seen yet. Pretty simple so I should have been onto it myself.

Now I see that the Earth is travelling at 67000mph around the sun. Is there no way to get a natural gentle landing?

If there were, one of the space faring nations would be using it.

It sure would confuse the geological record, wouldn't it? You'd have the accretion of a moon essentially sandwiched on top of the accretions of the Earth; you'd have some dense stuff there as well that arguably should have settled to the core long ago.

You'd have long term settling; actual kinetic energy; something that would cause a lot of plate tectonics.

Pangaea Again!
We are citizens of the world.
Greetings Fellow Earthlings.
Take you nationalism and stuff it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/29/23 14:08, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

The continents around Africa have to get
pushed in many directions and opposite directions.
If there is one source why is there different
directions?

IF they get pushed back and forth they would
tend to not travel by cancel.

If drift is happening now and that will
cause the continents to come together
on the other side of the Earth how can they get
pushed opposite in drift and start over...

Some geologists will talk to you about Kelvin's model.

It calculated how long it would take for the Earth's
interior to cool down.

Basically, it used in its calculations the insulation
and lack of heat conductance of rock. The outer layers
insulated the inner layers of the Earth from heat transfer.

The ultimate result of the calculations was that it would
take tens of millions of years for the interior of the
Earth to cool down so that the outer layers might have
more similar heat to the inner layers.

They would also say that his calculations in the 1800s
were not wrong.

So why is the interior of the Earth or other planets
in or solar system still hot?

They would answer - added to this insulation effect, is
an input of heat in the interior from nuclear processes.
It could be slow fission in the heavy elements in the
Earth's core, or other nuclear processes that do not
involve fission in other layers as well. Those processes
do not have to be rapid - the insulation effect of rock
in the Earth keeps that heat inside the Earth and it
comes outward through volcanism relatively slowly.

In theory some convection moving heated rock could also
drive plate tectonics.

Nonetheless, geologists would not be familiar with
specific computer models of this - and so they would
be very hesitant to support any specific computer model.

Thus they would tend to say 'we don't know'.

I am thinking that at some point in the later 20th
century despite some statements about 'theory versus
fact', that the Vatican has come out with a statement
giving the idea that Galileo's interpretations of his
observations might have had some credibility.

Nonetheless, is it possible that several hundred years
in the future, geologists will still say 'we don't know'
on the issue of the theoretical motive factors involved
with plate tectonics? Who knows.

Then there is the word 'continent'.

Most geologists will say that there were other 'islands'
besides the land mass of Pangaea when it might have existed.

Is a 'continent' anything with a surface area equal or
greater than that of current Australia?

I am thinking that Greenland might be one island less than
a third of the land area of Australia, or maybe it is a
chain of islands connected to ice. Then again is New Guinea
part of Australia?

Many geologists claim that there might have been something
called 'Cimmeria' during the existence of Pangaea. Was it
a chain of islands like Indonesia now, or were they all
connected together at some points in time with a land mass
similar to Australia? Who knows.

Then again, if neither North America, South America,
Antarctica, nor Australia are continents, then does
'Pangaea' still exist with a name something like
'Afro-Eurasia'?

Something like an early Pacific Ocean may have once
had three plates moving away from each other. A lot
of two of them have gone under North and South America,
but bits of them still exist, and they are still moving
away from the Galapagos Islands. This is some times
called the 'Islands of Turtles'. So maybe it is turtles
all the way down, or at least to the side somewhere.

This supposedly might have been a long time ago. A lot
further back in time in theory than I can directly
remember.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)