Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Cold Core Model of Earth's Structure


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
183 replies to this topic

#171 lemit

lemit

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1115 posts

Posted 13 September 2009 - 01:32 AM

I have trouble understanding this thread. Of course I don't get the physics. I'm used to that. But I also don't get the history. And I don't get the logic.

So, the physics we've been using for several centuries is based on a parlor trick? An anti-Papist plot? A Protestant, uh, protest? The Evil Genius created modern physics? The Grand Deceiver? And only you, Cold-co, possess the intelligence to see behind the curtains (to even further mix my metaphors)?

If I remember my basic philosophy course from 40 years ago, there are only two entities intelligent enough to unravel that intricate a deception: Satan and God. Which are you? And why are you wasting your time on such as us? Don't you have any grander designs to work on?

Just curious.

--lemit
  • Moontanman likes this

#172 Cold-co

Cold-co

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 13 September 2009 - 06:01 PM

Lemit:
I'm an agnostic. I hope you know what that means.

#173 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 13 September 2009 - 06:19 PM

Lemit:
I'm an agnostic. I hope you know what that means.


Personally, I don't care in the least if you're agnostic, theist, atheist, or whatever. But.... You wrote this:

Amazon.com: Two Hundred Years Astray (9780962724015): Neil B. Christianson: Books http://www.amazon.co...52886555&sr=1-1

Yeah? I wouldn't see how the author of that book could be agnostic. I don't think it matters—I was just surprised to see you say that.

~modest

#174 Cold-co

Cold-co

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 13 September 2009 - 06:29 PM

Lemit brings up an interesting impunement of my character that leads to a problem associated with belief systems. All belief systems have their tenents documented in books. Right or wrong once written down they take on a aura of authenticity. When the belief system is questioned the adherents immediately bring forth the BOOK to prove their belief system. Scientists are not immune to this practice. If you look back through your textbooks and separate scientific fact from theory, you will discover that what we think we know about earth's formation is all predicated on the geodesist's insistence that earth must have a low moment of inertia. What follows after the geodesist's mathematics are taken as fact is earth scientists pile one theory upon another just to get their earth model to comply with the low momemt of inertia dictated by the geodesists. I am convinced geodesists errored.

#175 stereologist

stereologist

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 278 posts

Posted 13 September 2009 - 07:57 PM

The one thing we know that is written down that is completely wrong is horizontal gravity.

#176 Southtown

Southtown

    differentiating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1922 posts

Posted 13 September 2009 - 08:50 PM

I don’t think so, but applaud you, Southtown, for bringing us what appears to be a truly obscure – if its google search (results 1 - 3 of 3 for istocacy) is used as a measure – term, istocacy – though I’m uncertain if its truly that obscure a term, or if somehow most search engines (I tried all the non-google-driven ones I could think of off the top of my head, with similar results) are somehow troubled by it (possibly because it’s a substring of a misspelling of aristocracy??).

Whatever term’s used, the theory referred to by the term istocacy is the widely accepted one that plate tectonics cause irregularities in the thickness and density of the earth’s crust, and that this can effect local gravity, sometimes in peculiar ways, such as causing a long plumb line to be measurably deflected from true geological vertical, as one would measure with a star sighting and a precise chronometer. Though I’ve not in this thread’s long history fully grasped what Cold-co is thinking, I’m pretty sure it’s not about this.

Sorry, man. I meant isostasy. :hihi:

Southtown:
"Isostasy" is exactly what horizontal gravity provides, however it goes unrecognized because it sums to zero. but it does have a value that can be calculated. That is what I have attempted to calculate trigonometrically.

Thank you for correcting me. So back to your point, are you talking about compression? A material under pressure takes the path of least resistance, i.e. pinching a marshmallow makes it expand perpendicular to the fingers.

#177 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 14 September 2009 - 09:03 AM

Personally, I don't care in the least if you're agnostic, theist, atheist, or whatever. But.... You wrote this:

Amazon.com: Two Hundred Years Astray (9780962724015): Neil B. Christianson: Books

Yeah? I wouldn't see how the author of that book could be agnostic. I don't think it matters—I was just surprised to see you say that.

~modest



This is the guy who wrote that book? I have read about this guy, i must be an idiot not to have made the connection!

#178 stereologist

stereologist

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 278 posts

Posted 14 September 2009 - 10:01 AM

If you look back through your textbooks and separate scientific fact from theory, you will discover that what we think we know about earth's formation is all predicated on the geodesist's insistence that earth must have a low moment of inertia.


Prove it! This is as baloney as horizontal gravity.

#179 TheBigDog

TheBigDog

    Doing the Impossible

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4095 posts

Posted 14 September 2009 - 02:19 PM

TheBigDog:
I'm not sure you have read the first post on this thread. It lays out the problem.

I think the problem may be that I read the post, and answered the question, and you are not satisfied with that answer. I would appreciate it if you could point out where I was wrong in deciphering your question; I was pretty specific in my posts.

Bill

#180 Cold-co

Cold-co

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 14 September 2009 - 03:52 PM

Modest:
Have you ever heard the saying that you cannot judge a book by its cover?
Until you have read the contents, don't jump to conclusions. In fact from what I have been able to determine from the history, ancient priests high jacked the science of the ancients to build religion. And for your information I graduated from a Jesuit university so I do have minors in religion and philosophy. I abhor organized religion, but that doesn't stop me from studing them. Pyrotec has a copy of my book, maybe he will lend it to you. I'm sure he doesn't intend on reading it because it opposes his religion of textbook science.

#181 Cold-co

Cold-co

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 14 September 2009 - 04:29 PM

TheBigDog:
I reread your post and agree it is not the crust, but the inner mass movement caused by earth's rate of rotation that causes the earth to bulge. But the geodesists who made the calculation only took into account the acceleration of gravity in the earth's surface as countering earth's flattening. When I trigonometrically calculated the gravitational accelerations at work at descending depths within the earth, I ended up with another acceleration (horizontal) that had never been calculated or incorporated into the PREM model. My vertical accelerations match those incorporated in the RREM.
In addition, for earth to bulge it would have to overcome surface tension whose force is F=S2C. C being earth's circumference, S being the value of surface tension and 2 being an accounting for both sides of the bulge.
So I'm stuck with a dilemma. I've asked for a review of my way of doing the calculations, but thus far all I've gotten are postings of textbook information that I have long ago read.

#182 lemit

lemit

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1115 posts

Posted 15 September 2009 - 01:13 AM

Lemit brings up an interesting impunement of my character that leads to a problem associated with belief systems. All belief systems have their tenents documented in books. Right or wrong once written down they take on a aura of authenticity. When the belief system is questioned the adherents immediately bring forth the BOOK to prove their belief system. Scientists are not immune to this practice. If you look back through your textbooks and separate scientific fact from theory, you will discover that what we think we know about earth's formation is all predicated on the geodesist's insistence that earth must have a low moment of inertia. What follows after the geodesist's mathematics are taken as fact is earth scientists pile one theory upon another just to get their earth model to comply with the low momemt of inertia dictated by the geodesists. I am convinced geodesists errored.


I was referring to:

Some two hundred years ago, scientists longed to break free from Church control. To break free, they needed to unseat the Church approved, cold-core cross section that had been taught for over 5000 years. The sleight of hand they devised was so well disguised even the Jesuits, who the Pope directed to derail their efforts, could find no fault in their logic. In time, the Jesuits came to teach the scientist’s view. Today, we perpetuate the scientist’s sleight of hand every time we teach gravitational forces at work within Earth.

I can't speak to the physics, but in that quote you seem to question the motives of all modern physicists. You reduce science to an anti-Papist parlor game (or sleight of hand) that has fooled the Jesuits, whose directive from the Pope I assume you've seen, and everybody else who teaches physics, but doesn't fool you.

By demeaning others' research and their motives, you impugn your own character beyond my capability.

--lemit
  • Turtle likes this

#183 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 15 September 2009 - 11:57 AM

...Throughout this thread, I’ve been struck by the strangeness of Cold-co’s considering the force of gravity on a body in neither of the two common ways: as a single net force vector (which, close to above or below the Earth’s surface, is nearly toward its center), or as a large number of vectors between the body and a collection of point masses representing the Earth’s body (in “A brute force calculation”, I used about 1,000,000. Ideally, one should use a point for every massive fundamental particle, though using merely one for each atom – about 1050 should be good enough :autumnleaves:)

If there are no objections within 24 hours, I’ll close this thread.

Except in cases of extremely offensive or illegal activity-promoting posts, we don’t as a policy erase hypography threads.


it has been 48 hours and i move that the thread be closed as suggested. :hal_jackolantern:

#184 stereologist

stereologist

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 278 posts

Posted 15 September 2009 - 12:38 PM

I second the motion. I'm not aware of any demonstration of horizontal gravity or the answer to my question:
"Any miners in a deep working mine ever report pulling a rock off the wall and having it cold on the other side?"