It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Expanding Earth Theory

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Phage
 


Sorry, I was laughing too hard at According to Jim to think straight for a minute. The force of gravity stays the same, so, yes, surface gravity decreases with increasing radius.


Don't be a smuck ... keep an open mind.

First things first, the "expansion" is an observed fact where the earth seen from outer space, has all the aspects of having "grown". Secondly, "expansion" is also an observed fact with lava. Lava, is filled with microscopic holes from gases that escape into the surface of the earth and hence the lava "collapses" and appears to shrink afterwards. But the gas bubbles within it, are sometimes so large, that they make entire champers.

You can deny this if you want, and you can bump your head to the wall, and say to yourself "it's not growing, it's not growing". Well, the sun is not going to collapse on itself, and when it cools it will grow because it is made out of plasma that is liquified and possibly even solidified within it.

Earths core is pretty much the same thing, except on a miniscule scale and without the "nuclear fusion", but then maybe it does have some nuclear reaction down there. But the magma, is definately plasma and it is liqified and when it cools, it expands and the gases that result make microscopic bubbles in the lava. An observed fact.

But, we have no clue as of what is occurring inside the core. Whatever speculations as to the core being iron nickel, can be easily disbelieved for many reasons. The first, and the most obvious, is why would there be an iron core inside a planet that got created in a plasma universe. 99% of the universe is plasma, that the core isn't ... makes absolutely no sense.

What concernes gravity, stating it is constant is about as productive as plate tectonics and big bang. Plate tectonics stating you can subduct lighter material into a denser material beneath, which defies physics. And the other trying to make a bridge between religious creationism and science. We can observe, that gravity has NOT been constant. Unless you want to believe it was nephilim that made stonhenge, or Aliens that lifted the stones. No? then there is only one other alternative, isn't there ... that gravity somehow was not constant, and those stones were lighter.

We are not making a movie here, or trying to make money from a book where "mysteries" need to be inside it, to make the movie or the book sell.

Beyond the above three facts, we also have "black holes". These are very dense matter, that radiate outside the visual spectrum. But their mass is not infinite, is it ... the radius of the mass itself may be small, but the gravitation pull is enormous outside the outer edges of it's original size. Maybe I shouldn't venture there, but what I am pointing out is that if the core is pressed in, so will the overall gravity increase.




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


First...not once did I deny the expansion of the Earth. I would love to know how you were able to deduce my entire belief system from a single statement that has nothing to do with anything you mentioned.

Second...I was stating that the force of gravity is constant if mass is constant, whether volume/density changes or not. That's not the same as saying that the force of gravity has been constant throughout the history of the universe. Again, you've taken a single statement and assumed, based on that, that I believe something that I wasn't even talking about.

Don't assume what I believe and don't believe. Especially if you're going to be calling me names in the process.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Don't assume what I believe and don't believe. Especially if you're going to be calling me names in the process.


Well, sorry for jumping to conclusions, I apologize. I too, can be a smuck sometimes.

However, since we are talking about G. I would like to point out, that according to theory, we have black holes out there, that have enormous density. And according to scientists, that makes the gravity even greater. And if we assume it is a star that has collapsed on itself, that gravitational pull is greater than that of the original star. I am not saying I agree with this, but am pointing out that G has some anomalies in the universe that suggest that there is more to G, than conventionally attributed to it.

Am merely trying to open the possibility, that alterations in gravity on earth, do not necessarily need the enormous amount of mass as is sometimes attributed. An hypothesis, I know.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
When you talk about gravity and mass, you must understand that you are talking circular.

How much do you weigh? 25 kg

What is the definition of your weight? m = Fg.

What is gravity, it's F=Gm1m2/r².

So, what is this newton you are talking about? kg*m/s² ?

So, what is G? A mean constant, observed from the mass and gravity relationship, and it's radius.

Which came first? the hen or the egg, gravity or mass?

Gravity, obviously. Since we are defining any mass, by the gravitation or attraction forces. What is the mass of the earth?

You know G, can you use F=Gm1m2/r². No, you'd need to knof F and at least one of the masses involvied in an inter relationship, gravitation, between two masses. Like the earth and moon.

g=GM/r²

Now, it's simple isn't it. All we need, is the radius of the earth. And to define the acceleration when an object falls to the earth.

Wait a minute?!?!?! I'm getting dizzy running in circles here.

What is G? G is an unknown force, that may or may not be included in the mass itself. It has a linear correlation with the mass. So, now we know the mass of the earth is M=gr²/G.

First of all, this isn't accurate science, it's approximations. Good for calculations, but they do not define neither mass nor gravity, for what they are or are not. Because, basically 1kg by definition is a picked up object used for reference, and later defined for universal use. We are still handicapped, by the use of objects in our vicinity and known universe ... the surface of the earth, in all our definition. And G is not a constant, but a linear margin of error in our calculations. It's an unknown, but non the less a force for which we have no other knowledge about, except it's relation in our calculations.

So, stating that M must increase for g to increase, is not acceptable. For many reasons. If you take a look at the earth, gravitationally, you see a lot of anomalies. Why is water flowing up a gravitational mountain? Why is the strongest gravity in the northern hemisphere? Why is the lowest gravity in depths of the indian ocean?

Can water flow uphill?



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Putting it in another form.

You cannot use G, g, m or M to deny observations. Because these are derived calculations, and not an accurrate science.

Obesrve the facts, and then if you have to ... you must adjust your constants, instead of altering the reality to fit your calculations. The latter, is not acceptable.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

I would like to point out, that according to theory, we have black holes out there, that have enormous density. And according to scientists, that makes the gravity even greater. And if we assume it is a star that has collapsed on itself, that gravitational pull is greater than that of the original star.


That's actually inaccurate. The mass of a black hole is exactly the same as the mass of the star that created it. The only thing that has changed is it's surface gravity....
We've been saying throughout this thread that surface gravity decreases as radius increase. Again, as I've stated, this happens because the force of gravity stays the same. Since the force of gravity decreases with the square of distance, the surface of the planet moves through a lower and lower gravitational potential as it expands. This is what gives the expanding surface a lower surface gravity.
However, this also works in reverse. If the planet (or star) is shrinking, its surface is moving into a greater gravitational potential (since gravity increases with the square of increasing distance), which gives it a greater gravitational pull the further in toward the center of gravity it goes.
And this is what causes a black hole to form. The mass of the star shrinks so much that it passes a limit - the Schwarzschild radius. At this limit/radius, the gravitational potential at the surface is so great that light is unable to escape, and an event horizon forms.
The black hole is not created by any increase in gravity with increasing density... it's created by the radius of the object shrinking to within the Schwarzschild radius for the mass of the object (which is the mass of the star).



Originally posted by bjarneorn

When you talk about gravity and mass, you must understand that you are talking circular.


We define any force as F = ma. And weight is the same as force. This means, if we take a spring scale, which directly measures applied force (typically in Newtons), and then hang an object with a given weight from it, the force shown on the spring scale will be the same as the weight of the object.
Now, if we know the acceleration due to gravity, which is easy to measure (simply drop an object and take a video of it, and measure its acceleration), we can divide the force/weight by that acceleration. The result is the object's mass.
It's not circular. It works the same as it does when we're measuring friction, or any other force. In all cases, mass is constant.
Mass (also called inertia) is how much an object resists being accelerated by a force. A greater mass means a greater resistance to acceleration. No mass means no resistance to acceleration (which would be why massless photons travel at the fastest possible speed...they have no resistance to being accelerated to this speed).

Anyway... gravity is the force and mass is the resistance to being accelerated by that force. It's no more circular than friction.



So, what is G? A mean constant, observed from the mass and gravity relationship, and it's radius.


G can also be calculated from the mass of the Sun (M), the radius of the Earth's orbit (R), and the Earth's orbital period (P):

G = 4(pi^2)(R^3)/M(P^2)

G also appears in fundamental equations determining the Hubble parameter.
In the Friedmann equations, the ratio of the double time derivative of the scale factor, a, with a, which describes the observed rate of expansion of the universe, is dependent on the value of the Gravitational constant.



So, stating that M must increase for g to increase, is not acceptable. For many reasons. If you take a look at the earth, gravitationally, you see a lot of anomalies. Why is water flowing up a gravitational mountain? Why is the strongest gravity in the northern hemisphere? Why is the lowest gravity in depths of the indian ocean?

Can water flow uphill?


I never stated that mass must increase for g to increase. g is acceleration due to gravity, it's not the force of gravity, and it increases with decreasing radius (or decreases if the radius expands).
The force of gravity is constant with mass, because, as you stated,

F = GMm/(R^2)

where F is the force of gravity between two massive objects (with masses M and m), and R is the distance between them. This depends nothing on the size of the two masses...only on the masses, themselves.

The Earth is gravitationally anomalous because it's spherically asymmetrical. The Earth is not a uniform distribution of mass...therefore, it does not have a uniform gravitational distribution.
The force of gravity is (every so slightly) greater in the northern hemisphere because the north has a greater mass distribution.
The lowest gravity is at the lowest depths of the Indian ocean because of two reasons... this region represents a lower mass distribution, and it's closer to the gravitational center of the Earth, which puts it at a lower gravitational potential.

As for water flowing uphill...ever heard of Magnetic Hill, New Brunswick?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

G can also be calculated from the mass of the Sun (M), the radius of the Earth's orbit (R), and the Earth's orbital period (P):

G = 4(pi^2)(R^3)/M(P^2)

G also appears in fundamental equations determining the Hubble parameter.
In the Friedmann equations, the ratio of the double time derivative of the scale factor, a, with a, which describes the observed rate of expansion of the universe, is dependent on the value of the Gravitational constant.



And I say, that you cannot use these calculations. You do not know the mass of the sun. You used G, to get the mass of the sun in the first place. Again, circular.

GMm/r² = mv²/r

The mass of the earth m can be removed.

GM=v²r

Which gives you

M=v²r/G

So, to get the mass of the sun, you used G. So, G is already included in M. You didn't find the mass of the sun, you only calculated what the mass needed to be, so that your gravity would apply.

It isn't accurate, because all vehicles in space need to be adjusted every now and then. But it is relatively accurate enough to be used. Yet, I am not so sure about that ...

I understand the use of Venus to get the angle between venus and the sun, when Venus is at 90 degrees from our point of view to the sun. Thus, a radar wave used to calculate the distance to venus, and thus the distance to the sun. However, the margin of error is not small. It's pretty huge, because we are talking about vast distances, and when we calculate the mass, distance or diameter of the sun. Thousand kilometers, to or from may not look much on paper, but it's a huge value.




As for water flowing uphill...ever heard of Magnetic Hill, New Brunswick?



No, I hadn't heard of it. Googled after you posted it, and this is what I mean.

However, to further point out what I mean in this concept. The atlantic ridge, is where the greatest gravity is. The distance to the center is smaller here, than around the equator. Yet, water is flowing uphill and against the angular momentum of the earth, all to fill the oceans the way they are.

I don't mean to be a nuisance, just pointing out that we must use our calculations to describe reality. And not insist on our calculations to be right, and reality must adher to them.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by CLPrime

G also appears in fundamental equations determining the Hubble parameter.
In the Friedmann equations, the ratio of the double time derivative of the scale factor, a, with a, which describes the observed rate of expansion of the universe, is dependent on the value of the Gravitational constant.


And I say, that you cannot use these calculations.


Now explain to me why the calculation of G from the Friedmann equations is inadmissible.




As for water flowing uphill...ever heard of Magnetic Hill, New Brunswick?


No, I hadn't heard of it. Googled after you posted it, and this is what I mean.


A little more research would show you that such things are illusions. The grade of the hill is actually slightly negative, so, while it appears that cars on that hill (and any other hill like it) roll uphill, they are, in fact, rolling downhill.



However, to further point out what I mean in this concept. The atlantic ridge, is where the greatest gravity is. The distance to the center is smaller here, than around the equator. Yet, water is flowing uphill and against the angular momentum of the earth, all to fill the oceans the way they are.


At the Atlantic Ridge, the gravitational anomaly approaches 50 mGal. That's 0.0005 m/s^2 above the mean. For a mean surface gravity value of 9.80665 m/s^2, that equates to a local surface gravity value of 9.80715 m/s^2. How is this significant?
Also, the oceans are contained within the Earth's gravitational system. They contribute to its angular momentum, they don't act independent of it (unless, of course, the Earth suddenly stopped rotating...then, we'd have a problem). So, how are the oceans flowing uphill, exactly?



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Now explain to me why the calculation of G from the Friedmann equations is inadmissible.



Because it is a basic mathematical fallacy.

M=v²r/G

Thus, you can find the mass of the sun. Now, you want to do.

G=v²r/M

Which is equivalent to

G=v²r/(v²r/G)
G=G(v²r/v²r)
G=G




At the Atlantic Ridge, the gravitational anomaly approaches 50 mGal. That's 0.0005 m/s^2 above the mean. For a mean surface gravity value of 9.80665 m/s^2, that equates to a local surface gravity value of 9.80715 m/s^2. How is this significant?



Actually, the anomaly reaches 80 mGal, and surpasses. And the gravity approaches 9,82 m/s² which is the value we used to use for that area, in my youth. Here, in scandinavia, we use 9,8 flat. At the equator, it's 9,78.




Also, the oceans are contained within the Earth's gravitational system. They contribute to its angular momentum, they don't act independent of it (unless, of course, the Earth suddenly stopped rotating...then, we'd have a problem). So, how are the oceans flowing uphill, exactly?



For the first part, you have this new idea that the earth is getting fatter because the oceans are adhering to the centrifugal force, and moving away from the atlantic to the equador. However, the equador is reducing the gravitational force, so it should be the other way around.

edit on 14-8-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Because it is a basic mathematical fallacy.
...


That's not the Friedmann equations. Go back to my second-to-last post (2 before this one) and find where I mentioned the Friedmann equations. Or just Google them.



Actually, the anomaly reaches 80 mGal, and surpasses. And the gravity approaches 9,82 m/s² which is the value we used to use for that area, in my youth. Here, in scandinavia, we use 9,8 flat. At the equator, it's 9,78.


Here is my source. Where's yours?
Also, one key reason the surface gravity at the equator is measured to be less because of centripetal force...not because of any equatorial gravity anomaly. What gravity anomaly there is is due to the Earth being oblate. Together, they give the equator an average surface gravity of, as you say, 9.78 m/s^2.
Besides, an anomaly of even 100 mGal is only the equivalent of a 0.01% increase - 9.80765 m/s^2, given the global mean. In order for the Mid-Atlantic ridge to have a surface gravity of 9.82 m/s^2, the standard gravity for that region would have to be 9.819 m/s^2... which is certainly likely. Regardless, the anomaly represents a negligible change from the mean.



For the first part, you have this new idea that the earth is getting fatter because the oceans are adhering to the centrifugal force, and moving away from the atlantic to the equador. However, the equador is reducing the gravitational force, so it should be the other way around.


The surface gravity at the equator is lower because of the Earth's centripetal force.
The equator is "fatter" because of the Earth's centripetal force.
Obviously, the centripetal force from the Earth's rotation is more than capable of causing oceanic migration to the equator.
Do you know what would happen to the oceans if the Earth stopped rotating?

If the Earth stopped spinning



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

That's not the Friedmann equations. Go back to my second-to-last post (2 before this one) and find where I mentioned the Friedmann equations. Or just Google them.



I'll admit I haven't taken a look at the Friedman equation specifically, as I view it to be the same thing in reality. Because we have only one means of calculating the Suns mass, and that is by using G in the first place. So, no matter what equation you are using, you are using the mass of the sun, as is found with thelp of G. But I'll take a further look.





Where's yours?



I just took a peek at the ESA geo satelite readout. The map says -100 to an 80.




Also, one key reason the surface gravity at the equator is measured to be less because of centripetal force...



Agreed, this is why the Nibiru and other end of the world predictions are all wrong. They assume the gravity will be "greatest", within the galactic plain as we reach the center of it. That would actually be the other way around.




Besides, an anomaly of even 100 mGal is only the equivalent of a 0.01% increase - 9.80765 m/s^2, given the global mean. In order for the Mid-Atlantic ridge to have a surface gravity of 9.82 m/s^2, the standard gravity for that region would have to be 9.819 m/s^2... which is certainly likely. Regardless, the anomaly represents a negligible change from the mean.



Agreed.

But then, you can also see major vulcanic events, and earthquake provide anomalies in gravity. My view is that the mass of the earth, is 90% in the core. I see the core, as a highly dense metallic plasma. This is my personal view on the subject, not a fact as you know I adher to the earth expanding. I see the expansion being this plasma cooling, and as it cools it seeks it gaseous state. As it does, the crust thins, and the distance to this dense material lessens. Causing increase in surface gravity, and thus answers our questions as to how stonehenge was built, as well as pyramids and other ancient architecture. These places may have been gravitational anomalies in the earth, because of subterranian plasma conduits.




The surface gravity at the equator is lower because of the Earth's centripetal force.
The equator is "fatter" because of the Earth's centripetal force.



It's not a question of centripedal force, as the only force that is acting upon us is g. This is our centripedal force, there is no outgoing force that wants to throw us into space. We are firmly on the surface, and the only question that remains is whether the direction of g, as a vector is 90 degrees down, or wether it is ~90 degrees down.

What we observe in the universe, is the centripedal force of the galaxies. They spin, and gravity is the least around the galactic plain. So, this is where the density is the least ... of course you can say, that the earth is similar, that the gravitation is the leat around the equador. And that the density of water, is "smallest" there. But you already stated that the gravitational difference was miniscule.

You can't have it both ways ...
edit on 16-8-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

I'll admit I haven't taken a look at the Friedman equation specifically, as I view it to be the same thing in reality. Because we have only one means of calculating the Suns mass, and that is by using G in the first place.


Fortunately, the Friedmann equations have nothing to do with the Sun. They allow G to be calculated directly from measurements of cosmic redshift.
Also, Einstein's field equations, and several equations that follow from them, allow for a direct calculation of G given observations of the expansion of the universe. Tweak G by even a little and the mathematical universe fails to conform to reality.



I just took a peek at the ESA geo satelite readout. The map says -100 to an 80.


A link would be awesome.



My view is that the mass of the earth, is 90% in the core. I see the core, as a highly dense metallic plasma. This is my personal view on the subject, not a fact as you know I adher to the earth expanding. I see the expansion being this plasma cooling, and as it cools it seeks it gaseous state. As it does, the crust thins, and the distance to this dense material lessens. Causing increase in surface gravity, and thus answers our questions as to how stonehenge was built, as well as pyramids and other ancient architecture. These places may have been gravitational anomalies in the earth, because of subterranian plasma conduits.


And you're more than free to hold that view. There's no evidence, and no need, for such a view, but that hasn't stopped anyone yet.



It's not a question of centripedal force, as the only force that is acting upon us is g. This is our centripedal force, there is no outgoing force that wants to throw us into space. We are firmly on the surface, and the only question that remains is whether the direction of g, as a vector is 90 degrees down, or wether it is ~90 degrees down.


The gravitational vector always points toward the center of gravity. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything....



What we observe in the universe, is the centripedal force of the galaxies. They spin, and gravity is the least around the galactic plain. So, this is where the density is the least ... of course you can say, that the earth is similar, that the gravitation is the leat around the equador. And that the density of water, is "smallest" there. But you already stated that the gravitational difference was miniscule.

You can't have it both ways ...


The Earth spins, of course it has centripetal force (or, specifically, angular momentum).
Also, centripetal force is not an outgoing force that wants to throw us into space. Centripetal force is the result of the inward acceleration of the surface of the Earth. It's the resistance to this inward force which gives the illusion of being "thrown into space." And, again, this force does exist...because the Earth is spinning.
It's not centripetal force, itself, that counteracts gravity (as a vector, centripetal force acts roughly in the same direction as gravity at the equator, and at varying angles to gravity away from the equator). It's matter's resistance to centripetal force (according to Newton's 3rd Law) which acts outward, opposite centripetal force.
The imparted resistance is greatest at the equator, so the measured surface gravity is, on average, least at the equator. The resistance is least (in fact, non-existent) at the poles, so the measured surface gravity is, on average, greatest at the poles. It's because of this that the Earth is oblate - flattened at the poles and "fatter" at the equator.
Being oblate, as well, adds to the diminished gravity at the equator - the surface at the equator is further out from the center of gravity, so the gravity is weaker, whereas the surface at the poles is closer to the center of gravity, which gives them stronger gravity.

Together, this gives the broad range of mean surface gravity values around the planet, from relatively weak (9.78 m/s^2 at the equator) to relatively strong (9.82 m/s^2 at the poles) - the average being 9.80665 m/s^2.

Given an Earth with a smooth (yet still oblate) surface, there is a mathematically smooth gradient in the surface gravity, going from weaker at the equator to stronger at the poles. The map I linked to shows by how much the measured surface gravity deviates from this idealized Earth. As you can see, such variations (called the gravity anomaly) are minuscule.

So, yes, I can have it both ways, because the Earth has it both ways - if you truly understand the physics involved.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Sorry to intrude, but can you indulge a question from the peanut gallery?On this expanding earth theory, what is the proposed timeline for the various sizes of the earth as compared to when we had different forms of life on it? I'm trying to understand if they are trying to say that we had all those super sized dinosaurs treading a smaller earth with a stronger surface gravity, or if the dinos came about later after a wave of expansion.

I'm also trying to understand if a smaller earth with a stronger surface gravity would have given us a denser atmosphere with more oxygen in it to support the larger animals. Not that I believe in an expanding earth theory. I don't know enough to form a conclusion one way or another. I'm just wondering why terrestrial life overall in the time of humans is so much smaller than the fossil record indicates it once was.
edit on 16-8-2011 by SheeplFlavoredAgain because: Typos



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Fortunately, the Friedmann equations have nothing to do with the Sun. They allow G to be calculated directly from measurements of cosmic redshift.
Also, Einstein's field equations, and several equations that follow from them, allow for a direct calculation of G given observations of the expansion of the universe. Tweak G by even a little and the mathematical universe fails to conform to reality.



You started by stating, that G could be found by help of the mass of the sun, and the Friedman model.

As I said, I haven't looked closely at them. Generally these equations take too much for granted, to be of any real use. They are good to theorize, but not for calculations. Statements like, given that the universe is spherical, or flat, or negative hyperbolic ... is not a statement that suggests to use this as proof. Given this, or given that ... define limits.




A link would be awesome.



You can access it all from here

www.esa.int...

earth.esa.int...




And you're more than free to hold that view. There's no evidence, and no need, for such a view, but that hasn't stopped anyone yet.



There is full reason for such a view. For a man, with such hold on mathematics, you should take a closer look at the mechanics needed for plate tectonics. I am not going to waste words with it, and simply state what it is ... it's a definition of a perpetual machine. And someone with your knowledge, should know by hand that that is equivalent to it being non sense.

As I said before, you can argue about many things. But there are two things, not argueable ... the obvious, and impossible. The obvious is that the continents fit on a smaller globe. The impossible is the mechanism to drive plate tectonics. This perpetual machine isn't worth an arguement.




The gravitational vector always points toward the center of gravity. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything....



As you said, the g is always point down ... but what is important, is vector-g.

Do an experiment, take a simple home kitchen element, a whipper. Put it in something to whip and tell me where the dough is moving, that is cought on the merrigoround.

Take a ball, a football. Put it in a bathtub, balanced, with the equator a little below the water surface to make up for gravitational pull. Now spin the ball, and observe whereto the water flows.




So, yes, I can have it both ways, because the Earth has it both ways - if you truly understand the physics involved.



It isn't a question of "understanding" the physics involved.

Defining an "understanding" is merely a question of violence ... who is right, is also a question of violence. I am stronger, so I am right. I have more money, so I am right. I have greater populace behind me, so I am right.

You must argue your case, and convince "me". It doesn't matter how many "fans" that agree with you, it is "I" the sceptical mind, you must convince. You must prove to me, that what you are saying and doing, is correct. I don't care how much money your parents poured into your exam, that doesn't make you right. The same applies to me, I must convince you ... of my idea. But both of these, demand that neither you or I have closed minds. This, you must understand.

Mathematically, G is a linear error in calculations that has been made a constant. An acceptable method. But it still stands for something, we don't know. This is important for you to understand.

I grew up on a volcanic Island. You could say, I started peeing on lava when I was born. I watched this stuff, and I was only a child when I visited my first volcanic eruption. This is something I observe, and for someone to come and tell me what I observe is wrong ... isn't acceptable. I don't care how much money you got, nor how many soldiers or nuclear weapons you have. You are telling me, that this stone I am looking at isn't a stone. And I am sorry to tell you this, but I couldn't care less how "BIG" you are. That doesn't convince me ... I know this stuff, from the fingers of my hand. I watched this stuff, since I was a kid. I wasn't watching fireworks, but wondering what occurred. I didn't touch my first lavastone and think "wow". I even had some permanently engraved in my face. When it comes to "submarinian" lava, I know this will erode quickly because of the loose form of the lava. Water carves stones, and it doesn't need any time to erode the hell out of lava. And this "light" low density stuff, isn't going to get subducted in vast quantities into denser lower material, no matter how many perpetual machines you create.

So, when I tell you "lava is like a baked bread, filled with microscopic gas bubbles". This is a fact, and not an opinion. It's an observed fact.

I am not saying, that the expansion of the earth is equivalent to Neal Adams depiction of it. What I am saying, is that denying the obvious is unacceptable. His visualisation, and that of others, is something that is both logical and obvious. To deny this, and argue a perpetual machine instead ... is absurd.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

You started by stating, that G could be found by help of the mass of the sun, and the Friedman model.


Yep, but those are two different things.



As I said, I haven't looked closely at them.


You should.



Generally these equations take too much for granted, to be of any real use. They are good to theorize, but not for calculations. Statements like, given that the universe is spherical, or flat, or negative hyperbolic ... is not a statement that suggests to use this as proof. Given this, or given that ... define limits.


For the purpose of theoretical calculations, those equations involve "given" parameters. But, when we apply those equations to the observable universe, those "givens" become specifics. As I said, only a single value of G will lead to the universe we observe.



You can access it all from here

[Links]


I have yet to see anything that gives actual values. I don't feeling like chasing wild geese today.



There is full reason for such a view. For a man, with such hold on mathematics, you should take a closer look at the mechanics needed for plate tectonics. I am not going to waste words with it, and simply state what it is ... it's a definition of a perpetual machine. And someone with your knowledge, should know by hand that that is equivalent to it being non sense.


My focus is astrophysics and quantum mechanics, so my knowledge of plate tectonics is lacking. However, my skimming of the mechanisms suspected to be responsible for plate tectonics leads me to disagree with you. A perpetual motion machine implies no energy input. In fact, plate tectonics has numerous potential sources of energy to drive plate movement.



As I said before, you can argue about many things. But there are two things, not argueable ... the obvious, and impossible. The obvious is that the continents fit on a smaller globe. The impossible is the mechanism to drive plate tectonics. This perpetual machine isn't worth an arguement.


Despite what I say, you'd be surprised at how easily I'd side with you given enough research on my end.



As you said, the g is always point down ... but what is important, is vector-g.

Do an experiment, take a simple home kitchen element, a whipper. Put it in something to whip and tell me where the dough is moving, that is cought on the merrigoround.

Take a ball, a football. Put it in a bathtub, balanced, with the equator a little below the water surface to make up for gravitational pull. Now spin the ball, and observe whereto the water flows.


It all moves outward, does it not?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Yep, but those are two different things.



No, they're not ... you put them in a context, where they supposedly meant the same thing.





You should.



This is what wikipedia says:


The Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic models of the universe within the context of general relativity.



(G is Newton's gravitational constant, Λ is the cosmological constant, c is the speed of light in vacuum). k is constant throughout a particular solution, but may vary from one solution to another.


Cosmological constant?

k is a constant, but may vary from one solution to another?

Mister! This is an equation, to THEORIZE ... it is NOT AN EQUATION TO CALCULATE an exact ANSWER.




For the purpose of theoretical calculations, those equations involve "given" parameters. But, when we apply those equations to the observable universe, those "givens" become specifics. As I said, only a single value of G will lead to the universe we observe.



Those given are never specifics, they represent our ASSUMPTIONS. The only SPECIFICS they are to represent, is to identify the workable area, that they appear to affect. In this instance, APPEAR is a very SPECIFIC word.




I have yet to see anything that gives actual values. I don't feeling like chasing wild geese today.



Really? The European Space Agency is suddenly a wild goose?

Let me quote what they say on gravity.


The mean Earth gravity is about 981 000 mGal (the well-known 9.81 m/s2), varies from 978,100 mGal to 983,200 mGal from Equator to pole due to the Earth's flattening and rotation.


The highest is actually 9,83 and not 9,82 as I stated.




My focus is astrophysics and quantum mechanics, so my knowledge of plate tectonics is lacking. However, my skimming of the mechanisms suspected to be responsible for plate tectonics leads me to disagree with you. A perpetual motion machine implies no energy input. In fact, plate tectonics has numerous potential sources of energy to drive plate movement.



You claim to be a physicist? I don't give a damn if you are an astro or other physicist. You claim this, and argue a perpetual machine?

I need to argue, that any energy that escapes the earths inner. Is exactly and no more, the amount of energy needed to escape it. And that for this to subduct, you need at least the same amount of energy to push it back again?

That is a perpetual machine ...

Are you serious? if you are, I suggest you go back to school ... I can understand a geologist, with modest knowledge of physics to hold such a view, which basically is a POLITICAL view, and not a scientific one. But if you really argue this ... I dismiss you here an now, no further discussion needed.

I am certainly beginning to understand, why they are outsourcing NASA to China.
edit on 19-8-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

No, they're not ... you put them in a context, where they supposedly meant the same thing.


This is what I said:


G can also be calculated from the mass of the Sun (M), the radius of the Earth's orbit (R), and the Earth's orbital period (P):

G = 4(pi^2)(R^3)/M(P^2)

G also appears in fundamental equations determining the Hubble parameter.
In the Friedmann equations, the ratio of the double time derivative of the scale factor, a, with a, which describes the observed rate of expansion of the universe, is dependent on the value of the Gravitational constant.


The two were clearly unrelated. Hence, the "also".



This is what wikipedia says:

The Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic models of the universe within the context of general relativity.

(G is Newton's gravitational constant, Λ is the cosmological constant, c is the speed of light in vacuum). k is constant throughout a particular solution, but may vary from one solution to another.


Cosmological constant?


The cosmological constant is directly measurable from dark energy and universal expansion observations.



k is a constant, but may vary from one solution to another?


Yes, from one solution to another, but only one of those solutions matches the universe we live in.



Mister! This is an equation, to THEORIZE ... it is NOT AN EQUATION TO CALCULATE an exact ANSWER.


It's an equation to describe the physical universe as we see it. What we observe is not theory...it's pure observation. As such, it is, in fact, to calculate an exact answer... as exact an answer as the universe, itself. If you think this equation has more than one possible solution, then you must believe reality has more than one description. As far as I can see, though, it only has one.


Really? The European Space Agency is suddenly a wild goose?

Let me quote what they say on gravity.

The mean Earth gravity is about 981 000 mGal (the well-known 9.81 m/s2), varies from 978,100 mGal to 983,200 mGal from Equator to pole due to the Earth's flattening and rotation.

The highest is actually 9,83 and not 9,82 as I stated.


No, the ESA is not a wild goose. You linking me to two web pages that don't give me the information I'm asking for is a wild goose. I wanted one specific set of data... how hard is it to link to that?

Ironically, the data you just quoted to me is what I've been saying all along. So, what's the point, exactly?



You claim to be a physicist? I don't give a damn if you are an astro or other physicist. You claim this, and argue a perpetual machine?


Did you read the part where I said that, given enough research on my part, I might come to agree with your overall conclusions? Or was that not what you wanted to hear?
edit on 19-8-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join