Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   center of the earth
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 76 of 310 (180590)
01-25-2005 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by simple
01-25-2005 5:24 PM


Re: on again off again
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by simple, posted 01-25-2005 5:24 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by simple, posted 01-25-2005 11:53 PM JonF has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 77 of 310 (180591)
01-25-2005 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by simple
01-25-2005 7:45 PM


Re: what does the evidence say?
I've called you on this once before - if you wish to discuss the evidence for spirits - start a thread, don't be dodger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by simple, posted 01-25-2005 7:45 PM simple has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 78 of 310 (180592)
01-25-2005 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by simple
01-25-2005 5:03 PM


Re: fulfilled prophesy
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by simple, posted 01-25-2005 5:03 PM simple has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 79 of 310 (180594)
01-25-2005 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by simple
01-25-2005 5:10 PM


Re: on again off again
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by simple, posted 01-25-2005 5:10 PM simple has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 80 of 310 (180596)
01-25-2005 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by simple
01-25-2005 5:30 PM


Re: what does the evidence say?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by simple, posted 01-25-2005 5:30 PM simple has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 81 of 310 (180597)
01-25-2005 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by simple
01-25-2005 7:45 PM


Re: what does the evidence say?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by simple, posted 01-25-2005 7:45 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by simple, posted 01-26-2005 12:17 AM JonF has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 82 of 310 (180617)
01-25-2005 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by simple
01-25-2005 7:29 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by simple, posted 01-25-2005 7:29 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by simple, posted 01-25-2005 11:59 PM crashfrog has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 83 of 310 (180635)
01-25-2005 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by simple
01-25-2005 7:29 PM


Re: detection challenged
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by simple, posted 01-25-2005 7:29 PM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 310 (180661)
01-25-2005 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by JonF
01-25-2005 7:46 PM


growing list
quote:
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.
And in this real thread, we look for these.
quote:
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.
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:
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
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by JonF, posted 01-25-2005 7:46 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by CK, posted 01-26-2005 1:56 AM simple has replied
 Message 95 by JonF, posted 01-26-2005 7:56 AM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 310 (180662)
01-25-2005 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
01-25-2005 9:40 PM


ha
quote:
See? Exactly. Because you cannot detect the spirit world - because it's inherent undetectable - you know nothing about it.
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:
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.
Ha.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2005 9:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2005 11:01 AM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 310 (180671)
01-26-2005 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by JonF
01-25-2005 8:13 PM


only in conjuntion
quote:
Wrong. It's liquid. The only way that we know that could be is by being hot.
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:
The current interpretation is the only one known that fits the evidence. What's your alternative interpretation that fits all the evidence?
I'm working on it.
quote:
Nope, the law of gravity is not at all uncertain. Why the law of gravity is as it is ... that's uncertain...
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. "

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by JonF, posted 01-25-2005 8:13 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by contracycle, posted 01-26-2005 4:45 AM simple has replied
 Message 96 by JonF, posted 01-26-2005 8:08 AM simple has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 87 of 310 (180683)
01-26-2005 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by simple
01-25-2005 11:53 PM


Re: growing list
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by simple, posted 01-25-2005 11:53 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by simple, posted 01-26-2005 2:06 AM CK has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 310 (180684)
01-26-2005 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by CK
01-26-2005 1:56 AM


Re: growing list
quote:
large elements of that not setting off warning bells in your head?
I said he might find it amusing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by CK, posted 01-26-2005 1:56 AM CK has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 310 (180692)
01-26-2005 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by JonF
01-25-2005 8:37 AM


let's get on with it here
quote:
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!
jonf- "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."
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:
I haven't seen any disagreements. Specifically what disagreements do you see?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by JonF, posted 01-25-2005 8:37 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by JonF, posted 01-26-2005 8:33 AM simple has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 310 (180706)
01-26-2005 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by simple
01-26-2005 12:17 AM


Re: only in conjuntion
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by simple, posted 01-26-2005 12:17 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by simple, posted 01-26-2005 5:38 AM contracycle has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024