center of the earth

Cosmo, are you actually reading what is posted in this and other threads?There are two theories of gravity we use. One is a little bit wrong the other may very well be. Newton's is the first, wrong but accurate enough for many uses. Einstein's is the second which corrects Newton's in the extreme cases. Because of some outstanding issues the best therory of gravity we have is not as solid as the theory of evolution.Things still fall down, we many just not have some very, very fine details of why they fall down right. (Mind you it may be the the general theory of relativity is fundamentally wrong not just in the details.)The gravitational attraction between objects depends on their mass not (directly their density). This was pointed out to you just a bit ago. Since it also varies with the distance there are some circumstances where it can appear to vary with density but that is not correct.Some of this stuff is both new to you and not really easy. For that reason you are going to have to read, re-read and move along at a careful pace.The reason we know that the gravitation attraction is based on mass is because it has been measured to be and measured very, very, very carefully. I'm not as sure but I think it is also a theoretical result of general relativity (our best theory of how gravity works). I can't do the math at that level though. The agreement between theory and measurements in this case is very good.

quote:

---

Is it, then, because this is the only thing that could attract?
"Yup."

---

OK. so then since we do know, exactly what gravity is, and where, and what causes it. I thought there was a little doubt as to 100% that we were totally sure beyond question, where it comes from, what it is, etc. Apparently, now there is not a shadow of a doubt. Fine. Then, if that is the case, of course the earth weighs exactly so many pounds. And there is no knowm materials that could survive under such density, unless it was hot. Cold or temperate is not thought possible.

quote:

---

Because of some outstanding issues the best therory of gravity we have is not as solid as the theory of evolution.

---

Oh great, here we go again. Now it isn't certain again.
Too bad, cause I think we could have moved on to a cavernless, dense inner earth, possibly supported by giant diamond walls, or something, and get into the heat thing.
Oh well. As far as the bulges detected by sattelite, though, after the flood chaos, and possible continent moving and such, I could see lots of material around to bulge! So far, it hasn't been shown dips and bulges would not be more just a result of rotation, though.
Go slow? Fine, it helps when there is some simplicity, and consistancy. (gravity is certain, then uncertain, then certain, etc.)

Thanks. Now I think I get that experiment. It wasn't that the balls were attracted to the earth, only each other! Then, we assume that this is indicitive of all mass, including the earth. My feeling is the earth is special, and may have been built with more in it's belly that the average marble! After all, the pin balls didn't even have crystal gyros in them!!!!!! (by the way, I doon't know what trolling is, but am pretty sure I'm not doing it)

You misunderstand big time. The theory of gravity is worrisome because it doesn't fit with quantum mechanics yet. There is a chance that it, like Newton's theory breaks down on the extremes. However, these extremes are at what is called the Planck length. That is about 10**-43 of a meter(cm? what's a factor of a 100 between friends eh?).I would expect the results of GR to hold even if it is totally replaced by something else. Just as Newton's theory is still useful in many cases even if totally replaced by GR.You can be certain that the Earth is approximately described by geologists today. There are lots of details but I'll bet big dollars that the basic form is as described.The uncertainties are in details that are of no relevance to our discussions here.

I think you should let people think you are trolling. To allow them to think you are actually serious will demonstrate something that you don't want anyone to think.

OT just a bit: From what I understand, many (?) physicists think String Theory is/will tie the two theories together.

That clears it up. Like gravity. So, quantum aspects are the most troublesome for gravity, eh? Hmm. Didn't I ask if several things could possibly influence things down there, one being this very thing? Funny I haven't got replies yet. Same with these "sophisticated" instruments someone brought up. Seems to me I used their own link to qualify where they said ONLY in conjuntion with our good old waves, or something would they amount to a hill of beans anyhow! Dips, and bulges? (too much 'sex' in the tillions?). I don't have a hard time getting some answers though, trouble is they don't seem to agree with each other!!
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! All these 'wonder ball' tests seem to have one thing in common. Well, make it two things, they seem to only be done on each other. Also, have they all been done from the surface of our earth, or near it? Just wondering, because if our earth was special, we might assume it as the universal norm, if they were. After all where did Newton's ideas base from?
There is an area of the unknown involving the center of the earth. I am trying to determine if there is, in this unknown, room to cool a pre flood basement down. Not with just a lifting of vestments, wave of a septre, and royal assurances to go back to sleep.-but with cold facts.

That is correct. But it has a way to go yet.

But that was Newton's idea (remember he was a God fearing man so he can't have been wrong). You remember the apple? That is what is at the center of the Earth: an apple. Newton proved that apples always fall down. And since there was an apple tree in the garden of Eden,well, then apples have been around a long time. Since they always fall down they all have to be at the center of the Earth. They can't go back up after all can they? So that answers all your questions about the earth. It is apples all the way down. Just like Newton figured out (and, you remember, he believed in God so it must be correct.)

quote:

---

But that was Newton's idea (remember he was a God fearing man so he can't have been wrong). You remember the apple?

---

Even christians can have it wrong, I hate to have to be the one to break it to ya! I think Newt did pretty good, with his perceptal limitations. 'Gee God must have a message in this apple'. Yes, he who sits under an apple tree in season should not be surprised if one falls on him. But we need not extraolate from here that all the universe, and earth must forever after fall into perfect line. Especially if all we calculate is rocks, and dirt, flood heat, and other physical properties. If thats all we have on offer, we should not be offended, or surprised when they call such reasonings, and theories, and 'laws' physics!

Hmm. No string yet that is the tie that binds. Wonder what we been missing?

It's mode of behavior usually with connotations of dishonesty in the postion being presented.From http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm But that isn't all of the picture. Another aspect that is not addressed here is pretending to be {A} to lure people into a discussion that is set up for the purpose of getting more and more outrageous until the other people get mad or angry -- the troll plays a "gotcha" game. This kind of behavior was typical of {Arkathon} and {Whatever} btw.This is the behavior I suspected on this thread. Note, I am not accusing you of doing this, just that it had that appearance. I frequent another board that does not have monitors and is often the target of troll attacks of all the forms discussed above.This is information to learn and use, eh? It's about honest communication first.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-25-2005 07:19 AM

---

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

I thought the tactic on this thread was pretty clear - he's trying to get to the point where you are unable to answer one of his questions, then he will dismiss everything that has been said so far as rubbish. He will then proclaim victory.You don't really think he is ever going to say "yep - I see now that Walt's theory about the flood is wrong?"He has too much emotional investment to do that.

I don't think so. In what message did you ask that? Seems to me that you did no such thing. You have made a lot of assertions, but you haven't yet supported any of your claims or demonstrated anything. I haven't seen any disagreements. Specifically what disagreements do you see? We might, but we don't. We have literally millions of observations and tests of the rest of the Universe, none of which indicate anything different about the Earth's makeup or gravitational field. The burden of proof is on you.