|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: center of the earth | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Isn't this saying some conditions (acceleration) we can't tell the difference between gravity and the other force? No, it's saying that if all we can measure is a force that we can't tell the difference between a force caused by gravity and a force caused by acceleration. However, in the real world there's always lots of other things we can measure.
My concern is, since we know so little about the inner region, how is it nothing similar could be at work there? It could ... if and only if we were riding on the center of the Earth and the center of the Earth were accelerating relative to our measurement frame. {looks out the window} Nope, the Earth is still one solid object. The center of the Earth is not accelerating relative to us. Any force we feel from the Earth is gravity, not acceleration. By the way, it's not possible that different physical laws apply down there, although I bet you don't have the several years of college math required to really understand why. Briefly, we have observed that momentum is always conserved. Through some pretty impressive and complex math we can show that conservation of momentum implies that the laws of physics don't change as you move around left-right, up-down, or forward-backward; and vice-versa. See Symmetry and CP Violation.
This is why I look at the surface part as different than the interior. Your reasons are based solely on your ignorance and unwillingness to follow the evidence where it leads. Being Bible-based, they are inappropriate in this forum, and are just meaningless noise in the scientific study of the Earth. Now, if you had some actual evidence, or even an interesting reason why we should look for some particular as-yet-undiscovered evidence, then you'd have something. But you appear to be incpable of that, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I've called you on this once before - if you wish to discuss the evidence for spirits - start a thread, don't be dodger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I think there is some measure of faith involved, this doesn't mean overall there isn't a mountain of evidence as well for some things, or that everything is all wrong, or that there is no gravity Your exact words were "But we do have assurances of how wonderful we can all be sure it is all figured out, just by faith so far, mind you!", which deos maen overall that yuo think there's no evidence. Now you say "some measure of faith" instead of "just by faith". Which is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
But the bottom line on that whole score, it seems to me, is still, as the link (I think it was you that gave it?) said. Namely that the results are utterly dependant on other data, chiefly, seismic waves. The results at the link I posted have nothing to do with seismic waves. The are derived from measurements of the position of two satellites relative to each other. No other data is involved. Of course the results do agree with the much-less-precise seismic wave results.
Also, even if they could stand alone ..., They do.
what would this tell us? Can you simplify it, is it mainly just that it is or isn't uniformly dense appearing? It tells us that the Earth's gravitational field is not perfectly uniform. Since only mass causes gravity (in this situation), this means that the Earth's distribution of mass is not exactly uniform, and tells us quite a bit about how big those nonuniformities are and how they are distributed. Specifically, the results tell us that the Earth is denser at the center than at the surface, and the nonuniformities are very very small.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
t is admitted we really don't know a lot about the center of the earth, really Nope. It is admitted that we haven't seen the center of the Earth. We know a lot about the center of the Earth.
In my case, I try to balance it with what is known about a spirit world, as well, if possible. Since what is known in science about a spirit world is absoluley nothing, that's a fruitless exercise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
That heat is a certainty in earth center (no indication yet it could not be cold, or tepid Wrong. It's liquid. The only way that we know that could be is by being hot. You should have said "no indication that it could be cold or tepid".
density. no proof other than we think thats gow gravity works. No proof other than "that's how gravity works, and here's the evidence".
Waves. no proof they could not be interpreted otherwise (except assumed density) Sorry, the burden of proof is on you. The current interpretation is the only one known that fits the evidence. What's your alternative interpretation that fits all the evidence?
no proof borders of inner earth zones are not hulls (except assumed density Sorry, the burden of proof is on you. The current interpretation is the only one known that fits the evidence. What's your alternative interpretation that fits all the evidence?
Admission that gravity law is uncertain (So, then the entire formula depends on our understanding of gravity) Nope, the law of gravity is not at all uncertain. Why the law of gravity is as it is ... that's uncertain.
Sattelite given as evidence turns out actually the data is utterly dependant on secondary things, mainly waves! Where did you get that crazy idea from? The only connection between the satellite data and seismic waves is that they produce consistent results. Neither one depends on the other. There's no mention of siesmic waves at any of the satellite sites to which I linked, and they make it clear where the data came from.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The thing is, when we make assumptions about things like that 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.
We know far more about the spirit world than the center of the earth! 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.
Anyhow, physics can't detect spirits, and evidence for them, and their world is not admissable, since we are 'detection challenged'. See? Exactly. Because you cannot detect the spirit world - because it's inherent undetectable - you know nothing about it.
No, I already have that. What I need is evidence. Since you've rejected all evidence put before you, I rather doubt this to be the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
cosmo writes: The thing is, when we make assumptions about things like that, that translate into old age reasoning, and teach children the same, it needs to be shown for what it is. Agreed. Especially for all things based on faith eh? We wouldn't want to mislead children on myths and fables would we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:And in this real thread, we look for these. quote:Point was, there was a force mentioned that you could not tell any difference from than gravity. My line of thought was simply to ask if there are such forces (like one we know about) why not in earth's center? Not that we are careening away from our core! quote:No, I wouldn't think a little side or up down would change laws of physics. It was more wondering if density was the one and only possible cause of gravity. Because it is the gravity that we see that is used to tell us the density. If planets wiggle, -we must be dense. Now, here's one guy who seems to disagree with you? "What goes on in the depths of the Earth is still a mystery. The farther down, the bigger the mystery. According to author Dougal Dixon, "[b]The rules of conventional physics just do not apply to the Earth's core." Reciprocalsystem.com Hey, he could be wrong. Here's a little list of things you might find amusing.There are a number of observations and phenomena that cast considerable doubt on the present model of the Earth. These topics include the following: 1.The dynamo theory's failure to fully explain the geomagnetic field, and its changes.2.Earthquake waves indicate a different internal structure than hypothesized (especially the Gutenberg discontinuity, and the different east-west and north-south earthquake-wave velocities). 3.Aurora, particularly the Theta-arc configuration and the polar wind, display features that are not what could be expected from the magnetic lines of force generated by the geomagnetic field, nor is the source of the ions coming up from the pole into space accounted for (the polar wind). 4.Noble gas anomalies are different than what would be found if the Earth formed as envisioned. 5.The findings uncovered by deep drilling, such as gravity, heat and other changes occurring with depth are not expected of the present model of the Earth. 6.Polar jerks, wandering and reversals are not compatible with what could be expected from the dynamo (i.e., reversals occur too rapidly, the geomagnetic field has a memory, etc.). 7.Physical features that retain their locations relative to the Earth's pole position even during polar wander and reversal are unaccounted for. 8.Earthquakes show that moderate to strong earthquakes are strongly coupled on a global scale. 9.Gravitational changes and reduced geomagnetic intensity occur during eclipses. 10.The overlapping nature of geophysical anomalies along mid-latitudes, just above the equatorial bulge, and at evenly spaced longitudes around the globe, and at the poles indicate a different and more dynamic planet. 11.Solar activity is correlated to a myriad of geophysical phenomena, such as changes in the length of day (i.e., the Earth's rotation), weather (QBO, El Nino, etc.), earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and so forth, for which the minor fluctuations in solar output cannot be responsible. See also the web page The Unity of the Sun, Earth, and Moon. 12.There is a lunar influence on a myriad of geophysical phenomena, such as changes in the length of day (i.e., the Earth's rotation), weather, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and so forth, that cannot be explained by the gravitational effects of the Moon. See also the web pages The Unity of the Sun, Earth, and Moon, and Natural Phenomena That Occur in Cycles. 13.The role of certain aspects of gravity, and the role of the mechanical forces (the Einstein Equivalence Principle) in the Earth's formation have not been taken into account. 14.The role of life in the generation and maintenance of the Earth's electric and magnetic environment, as well as the recognized role of life in biogeochemical cycles are rarely taken into consideration. 15.The solar neutrino problem can be explained with a different Earth model with a internal energy source. 16.The life-like characteristics of the Earth indicate that it is a living entity. 17.The polar (Chandler) wobble should dissipate if the interior is as theorized, but it is instead consistently reinstated. 18.There is a tremendous expenditure of energy through various geologic processes, such as earthquakes, geothermal energy, volcanics, El Nino, and so forth, for which there is no energy source with the present model of the Earth. http://www.livingcosmos.com/earth.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:No one said anything about me not being able to detect it. I can! I said science was detection challenged on that score, which it is, totally. quote:Ha.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Assuming what? We know the earth is dense because it has a lot of gravity. Yet we don't fully understand gravity, and have admitted other things can be indistinguishable from gravity. If we don't fully understand gravity, or what causes it, and don't know what's in our earth, how it it we can be so sure it is density causing it? I tried to move on on this point, but no one could assure me ---density = gravity. 100%, without exception, in theory or observation. Because if we can make any exception, I want to have a look at maybe making one too. quote:I'm working on it. quote:OK folks we have another vote for 'certain' here, although he doesn't seem to know why it actually works. At least he knows it's nothing in the center of the earth, (and, some say, one day will be, center of the universe) OK here's the quote from a link given in post 40 "because it is impossible to recognize whether a "dent" in the gravitational field has its origin in the interior of the Earth or on the surface. Only in conjunction with other methods, like seismology, can the causes be separated. "
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Do you actually bother read the links you provide? large elements of that not setting off warning bells in your head?
Have you really learnt nothing about the evaluation of sources since you have been here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:I said he might find it amusing!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Your link from post 333 here " The structure of the Earth’s interior cannot be determined from knowledge of the terrestrial gravitational field alone, because it is impossible to recognize whether a "dent" in the gravitational field has its origin in the interior of the Earth or on the surface. Only in conjunction with other methods, like seismology, can the causes be separated. " http://www.space.eads.net/web1/press/press_release.asp?la... (post 33 by jonf his link) So I guess you saying it stands alone will need some explanation! quote:In particular, it struck me some were saying we are sure of gravity, then no, then yes, then definately not, then, yes, but not 'why', etc. You seem to be quite knowledgable in this area, perhaps you could make it easy on me here. Am I asking too much when I look at that test with the little balls? I see a guy whose balls attract each other, and seems to assume mother earth is equally attracted to them. I say it may not be nessesarily so? I see people saying we don't fully understand gravity, yet who feel it is strictly density (mass and volume, matter)that could cause it. Then there was the guy I quoted who said he thought the laws of physics, even, wouldn't apply down there? Underlying all this , of course, is the assumption of fantastic age. Billions of years for everything to settle down down there, and even if we swallowed that, still no cause given for our generator down there to start up by it's little self.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Density IS not gravity. Massive bodies exhibit gravitational attraction across a gradient determined by density. The conventional way of conceptualising gravity is to view space as a rubber sheet onto which we put on object, like a ball. The object will create a dent in the sheet. Similarly, massive objects in space "bend" that space such that other objects slide down the gradient towards them. Where density enters the picture is that it determines how steep the gradient is. A very heavy, very small, ballbearing on the rubber sheet would make a deep, steep depression, while a large snowball might make a wide, shallow depression. Hence, we can calculate the total mass of the earth from knowing how big the earth is, and observing much it influences other bodies such as the moon. Now "other" things can be subjectively indistinguishable from gravity, but this does not mean they are the same thing as gravity. That is, what gravity DOES is cause two massive objects to accelerate toward one another, according to the gradient discussed above. ANY OTHER EFFECT that causes you to accelerate will "feel" like gravity, but will not BE gravity. So when you are in a lift that goes down, you start falling toward the centre of the earth - but so is the lift in which you are standing. So the experience that you FEEL is that gravity has lessened, but this is only an illusion cause by acceleration. similarly, we can cxreate "pseudogravity" in space by spinning a ring or cylinder; if it were wide enough, you could walk on the inside of the ring as if under gravity, which is "attracting" out away from the centre of the cylinder. But this is not real gravity - its just a form of acceleration frustrated by the surface on which you walk. And that will be clear when you throw a ball "up" and find that it does not come "down" where you are standing, because the surface you are on has rotated away while the ball was in flight. The experience of gravity is that of acceleration, and so other htings can "feel" like gravity without being gravity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024