center of the earth

I think you missed the part where he already rebutted this. Simply put, if we know that the earth's average density is X, and we observe that the surface is less dense than X, then we know that parts other than the surface must be more dense than X. It's simple mathematics.

No, from the radius of the Earth you get "volume." Mass you get from the gravitational attraction it exerts on other bodies, which is the Cavendish experiment. You put those together and you get "density".No, it's not an assumption, any more than assumption is involved when you step onto a calibrated bathroom scale. Just because you don't seem to understand how the experiment worked doesn't make it an "assumption" to apply it to precisely what it was designed to test - the mass of the Earth.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-24-2005 16:26 AM

No, it simply depends on our observations of gravity. Why? If you can observe the volume of the Earth, which you can, and you can observe the mass of the Earth, which you can, then you can derive its density, just like you can for anything else.No assumption required. It's not "assumed." It's derived from direct observation. How would magentism attract bodies that are not magnetic? I mean you could posit that when you get on a bathroom scale, it's not your weight being measured, but rather the force of angels pushing down on your shoulders. But why would we believe you? And if the "angels" you propose appear to act just like gravity does for everyone else, why should we believe that gravity doesn't act on you too?The things you think of as assumptions aren't assumption at all; they're just observations that you don't understand. You don't understand how looking at a pair of metal balls can tell you the mass of the Earth. That doesn't mean that they can't.

There's no such thing as an undetectable factor that could disturb a measurment, because we would be able to detect it through it disturbing our measurements. So, yes, meaning no other forces or factors are involved, because the word "gravity" includes all factors in play with regards to what we're measuring. Mass we detect by its effects on other objects. We don't have to actually see it to know that it's there because all matter has mass. No, it doesn't matter if the Earth is like a metal ball or not; the balls detect the mass of the Earth, not the metal-ball-ness of the Earth. They would detect the mass of a solid Earth the same way they would detect the mass of a hollow Earth.The fact that they're metal balls has absolutely nothing to do with what they measure.

You don't think the fact that these things are constantly double- and triple-checked by built-in scientific opposition, and even then, are taken tentatively, rather displays the lack of faith we put into those things?If someone came up to you and said "I think this is true, but I'd like you and your friends to check, and even if you come up with the same results I did, we might all find out we're wrong later," wouldn't you think that guy had a lot less faith - possibly none at all - in what he thought was true? Certainly a lot less than the guy that says "this must be true because a book said so."I don't know how you could come up with a system of knowledge any less based on faith than science. Faith is how you believe in the things for which there is no evidence. Your statements just aren't coherent with any definition of faith that I'm aware of.

We don't know a lot about cancer, either, but that doesn't change the fact that people are dying from it. The solution isn't to stop building hospitals; it's to build more schools. Again, faith is that which is believed in the absence of evidence. We have evidence that our interpretations are accurate; namely, that the predictions based on them tend to come true. Hence, because we have evidence, we need have no faith. The problem is that nothing is known about the spirit world, because to know, you have to have evidence. You confuse faith with evidence, which is why you accuse us of faith and exalt yourself as knowing, when in fact the positions are reversed. You're the only one here who needs faith.

Again, it's been shown to you that these are inferences, not assumptions. Simply repeating that they are assumptions won't make them so. You should really know better than that by now. No, we know nothing about the spirit world, because there's no evidence about the spirit world. You may think you know something about the spirit world, but you simply do not - for that to be the case, you would have to have evidence, which you do not have.You don't know anything about the spirit world; nobody knows anything about the spirit world, because there's no evidence for the spirit world. See? Exactly. Because you cannot detect the spirit world - because it's inherent undetectable - you know nothing about it. Since you've rejected all evidence put before you, I rather doubt this to be the case.

Why on Earth should I believe you?

I get banned every other month, it seems, at the blog of an aquaintance of mine from college. (Probably revenge for that time I whupped his ass at Trivial Pursuit.) Then he updates his blog software, apparently loses his ban list, and I'm back. In fact I'm probably long overdue for a temp suspension here at EvC, if only for all you other people to catch up.