center of the earth

Not necessary. We understand the physics of S-waves. They pass into solids (reflecting some) and don't pass into liquids. When S-waves are blocked, whatever blocked them is liquid.

Pretty sure? Now we don't know it is chambers, it's just that as I look at a sliced up world picture, where the different parts are, it kinda reminds me of different 'floors', or chambers. Now this doesn't mean they are empty, but how can we be sure if there are spaces somewhere on a particular floor or not? If we do know there are not, as you think, fine, exactly how do we know?

quote:

---

and are consistent with (or even let folks calculate?) and increasing density as you go deeper.

---

What if just the hulls, or walls were incredibly dense, would we be able to tell if it was through and through? Or would we just realize we hit something dense and different? And if all else fails, and we fall back on Newtonian reasoning, please explain someone why it has to be that way? Is it because of how much gravity the earth is known to have only? Just a thought, you know, with this crazy crystal gyro down there, I'm just trying to see what's possible. Now if someone suggested it was water down there, involved in producing the 'current' for our magnetic field, and some came up in the flood...! Why, I'd need to be able to explain to the poor soul why that couldn't be. Otherwise he might do something wild like try to hint that that's why the field is weakening, some of the water is gone. Not that I have yet met such a one, but, hey, better to be forearmed!

quote:

---

Not necessary. We understand the physics of S-waves. They pass into solids (reflecting some) and don't pass into liquids. When S-waves are blocked, whatever blocked them is liquid.

---

Yes I was aware of that at the outset here. But why a hot liquid?

Perhaps because it's real tough to find anything that's liquid at room temperature and a zillion psi pressure? Mineral oil, I know from experience, is solid at only 20,000 psi at 80 degrees F - that pressure's only four miles deep in the crust.

Cold rock ain't liquid.Liquid iron ain't cold.

you have both the average density and the angular momentum from the rotation about the pole axis. If the density were concentrated at a mid-level (anywhere between crust and inner core) this would significantly change the angular momentum because it is a function of the moment of inertia.for a uniform sphere the moment of inertia is:I = 2mr²/5the mass would be the density x volume orm = (d)(4πr³/3)so I becomesI = 2(d)(4πr³/3)r²/5 = 8dπr⁵/15now with this formula you can sum up the mass and the moment of inertia for a number of different scenarios, breaking the sphere into shells by calculating {m} and {I} for the inner and outer radii and subtracting the inner values from the outer to get the values for each individual shell, and then summing the total of all the shells.you are faced with the problem of matching the mass and the moment of inertia with different density distributions. good luck. use a spreadsheet.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

Perhaps because it's real tough to find anything that's liquid at room temperature and a zillion psi pressure?

---

OK. A couple quick questions come to mind then, just before moving on, so I can be sure there isn't the teensiest lingering doubt on this part of the issue. -1)If we had, say a submarine down in the ocean, but didn't see it from up here, we would suppose no man was down there. If we were told it was a new super sub, I don't know, titanium renforced hull or something, then it would make sense. If we looked down at the upper mantle 'floor' here, is there nothing in heaven or earth we know about that could fit the bill? Is there no casing (hull) so tough, it could withstand such pressure?
2) Could there be something, even if we don't know of such a material, we don't know about, you know ufo type strong material?
3)Is there any known or unknown material that would affect our little wave in such a way, as we might assume it had to be a liquid, when it could actually be something else?
4)Are we absolutely positive the pressure would be a 'zillion'?
5) Why precisely must it, if it must?
When we make a mistake in putting a puzzle together, and go back and have a second go, we tend to try and be sure we get it right.

Nothing that fits the known data. Theoretically yes, but there is no evidence for its existence. Theoretically yes, but there is no evidence for its existence. A zillion is an exagerration of course but its going to be a very very very high pressure. Simple physics.
Edited to add: I'll make it easier for you to understand. P = F/AThis message has been edited by DrJones*, 01-24-2005 03:07 AM

---

*not an actual doctor

quote:

---

you are faced with the problem of matching the mass and the moment of inertia with different density distributions. good luck. use a spreadsheet.

---

Well, I don't see it as my problem, not that you meant anything by that. My problem is bringing it down to a pretty simple and easily understood level.

quote:

---

for a uniform sphere the moment of inertia is:...

---

Now earth is the uniform sphere here, I gather. On this point I mught ask a question or two. Are we sure it is 'uniform'? Let's face it they don't know that much about the inner part. Unless uniform refers more just to a smooth rotation or something? I intend not to use the bible in this thread as a sole means to defend anything. But, there is a machine outlined there I just want to refer to for a moment. Eze 1 talks about the mobile throne of God, and about, wheels, within a wheel, some going one way, and I think it was the ones inside going another. If, I took something like this, stuck it in a sphere, would it be "uniform'? In earth I read about the core turning different, or faster than other parts.
""The really surprising thing is how fast the core is moving," Richards said. They estimate the core moves about 100,000 times
faster than the movements of the Earth's tectonic plates. " http://www.crystalinks.com/corecrystal.html And this is just something in the earth center they happen to be able to measure. What if say, something was revolving another way, but we havn't been able to detect it yet? Why I wondered was after reading this ""The gravity force has the same form as Coulomb's law for the forces between electric charges, i.e., it is an inverse square law force which depends upon the product of the two interacting sources. This led Einstein to start with the electromagnetic force and gravity as the first attempt to demonstrate the unification of the fundamental forces. It turns out that this was the wrong place to start, and that gravity will be the last of the forces to unify with the other three forces. Electroweak unification (unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces) was demonstrated in 1983, a result which could not be anticipated in the time of Einstein's search. It now appears that the common form of the gravity and electromagnetic forces arises from the fact that each of them involves an exchange particle of zero mass" http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html#grav
So my concern would be if any of the 4 forces could be working that would change the end result?
Again .............."All interactions/forces in nature electromagnetism, weak, strong and gravity) are transmitted by particles called gauge bosons. For example electromagnetism is 'carried' by photons. This idea was carried on to explain mass. In 1966 Peter Higgs (University of Edinburgh) proposed that the universe was full of a field called a HIGGS FIELD. Disturbances in this field as particles move through it cause objects to have mass. From a a quantum point of view, we can only stir up the field in discrete units. The smallest possible disturbance is due to a HIGGS PARTICLE, or more precisely, a Higgs Boson. The field consists of countless Higgs Bosons that act like a kind of cosmic molasses that fills all of space. As objects move through space they have to 'wade' through these Higgs particles that 'cling' to them, causing a drag that shows up as mass. To sum up, Higgs Particles are believed to be responsible for mass of objects in the universe."What is a Higgs Particle?
So, the question, what about something like quantum phenomena, Higgs particles, zero mass, etc, could some of this be at work, that might either 'wiggle a wave' a little, or affect some density or mass, rotation, etc. assumption?
And, finally, if earth is a designed spacecraft, center of the universe type deal, would it really be so surprising? It's late, and I think I raised too many mind melting mantle maybes. The main thing was other forces, like parts of our sphere sort of inverse rotating, having a big effect here?

No it is not uniform, if you have been reading the other posts there would be no way to get this from my post. You would also not need to have the shells of different density.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

"Density is found by dividing the mass by the volume (? = m/V). A scientist named Henry Cavendish is known for calculating the mass (and then density) of the Earth. Cavendish assembled an apparatus that consisted of a suspended metal rod with two lead balls hanging from it. He placed masses of metal near these balls in order to measure the force of attraction between them. Correspondingly, he could then find the attraction on a mass the size of the Earth and
then determine its density. This famous procedure is known as the Cavendish Experiment."
"In order to find the volume of the Earth you need more information than just the volume of a sphere formula. This formula (4/3?r3) requires the radius of the Earth. The diameter of the Earth at the equator is 7926.68 miles (or 12756.75 km). Now, to find the radius, divide the diameter by 2 (because any radius is exactly half of its diameter). The mass of the Earth is found to be 6 sextillion,.."
Density of the Earth - The Physics Factbook
So, are they not simply looking how big earth is, via the radius, etc, to come up with "mass". Next, to clinch the deal, we use lead and metal, in a lab experiment, and extrapolate the results to earth.
What if they would have been better, in the lab, to use, say, a water baloon, and a titanium model of the uss enterprise? In other words, really, is this not an assumption 'a la big time'?
5 shoeboxes on a table, all tied shut. Some with dirt, some feathers, lead, etc. Without looking in, or knowing, what formula can I use just measuring the side of the boxes? Hey, I wonder id a sextillion is more than a zillion?!

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. The Cavendish experiment measured tha attraction of two known masses at a known distance apart to each other, and compared that with the attraction of the Earth. No assumptions other than the standard Newtonian Law of Gravity. And we know that works, because we launch satellites these days, and track their orbits within inches. That, though you'll say "it's due to hidden chambers in the firmament", lets us calculate an accurate mass for the Earth. Real accurate.You're just being purposely obtuse, Cosmo.

quote:

---

Mass you get from the gravitational attraction it exerts on other bodies

---

Thank you! So, then the entire formula depends on our understanding of gravity. Without this, you could not determine if, or how dense the earth was. So, Newton sitting of earth's surface, and seeing how much of an effect we have on other planets, concluded that that gravitational effect was based on how dense the earth was. 'We must be heavy, we seem to have that effect'.
Razd mentioned "Our current theories on gravity do not explain the observed motions of large scale cosmic systems; the rotation of galaxies is to fast to match up to the calculated mass density distribution theoretical rotation.
This means that either the {combined observations of thousands of man-years and millions of telescopes etcetera} or the {model of the large scale cosmic system} or the {theory\theories of gravity} are wrong. "http://EvC Forum: GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe} -->EvC Forum: GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}
Are not our 'current theories on gravity' largely based on how earth affects other planets? (with assumed density?)If this was off, could it not throw things as we get further out? Seems he allowed for at least a possibility it could be wrong?
Would not a black hole affect gravity? Could something in our earth (they don't have little black holes do they?) whether magnetism, radiation, or some force possibly duplicate the effect of what would happen if it were dense? Not that there are not things down there that are not very dense. Possibly more than we know. Say, even the liquid was water, that's pretty dense isn't it? And a crystal gyro of uncertain composition could be pretty dense as well. !

Mass, based on affects of planets by earth. Volume is easy, almost just need a ruler. So, if earth was, like the lead and metal in the experiment, as you say a "known mass", it would be correct. Mass, basically being what is inside the center of the earth.

quote:

---

we launch satellites these days, and track their orbits within inches. That, though you'll say "it's due to hidden chambers in the firmament", ..

---

I don't say it's because of chambers. That was just how I tried to say it sort of seemed to me. I can take it or leave that. If I superglued a metal beehive inside a globe on my desk, well balanced, it would be hard to tell just watching it spin. So you say tracking orbits tells us how dense something is? Fair enough, could you give a few words on say, how a planet would orbit if it weighed 6 sextillion lbs, as opposed to only 5, 3/4 sextillion lbs? Also, would the fact that the poles are somewhere other than where they used to be (I think?) have any effect?