Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Evidence.

ImagingGeek,

You still seem to doubt the meaning of ‘r’ in Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation, which I stated. ‘r’ is the distance variable, not radius. I do not want to beat a horse to death here so I will not make further comments on this very basic concept.

In reply to my derivation of the ratio of the value of ‘g’ (gravity) of Pangea vs. today’s ‘g’ which I calculated to be r^2/d^2, where r is the radius of the Earth and d is the distance between the center of mass of Pangea and the center of mass of the Earth after the core(s) shifting, you wrote:

“As I stated previously, your formula assumes the entirety of the earth's mass is moving; that is the only condition under which this ratio will produce an accurate result.”

To be precise, reread my statement before your quote above, it is pretty clear.

Your example of splitting the Earth into two hemisphere’s is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with what we are discussing and therefore, those calculations are meaningless. BTW, your calculations in that example are totally wrong. You would have to find the COM of each hemisphere and use the distances from those points to the fixed reference point to get a meaningful number.

In response to Laze’s Assumption #2, you wrote:
“This is incorrect - the centripetal force was unbalanced before the core shift; that is why there would be a precession (wobble) of the earth. Movement of the core would correct this precession, not make it worse, by re-establishing the earths center of mass on the axis of rotation. This is a simple concept you consistently get wrong.”

You are confusing what I wrote. The unbalanced centripetal (or centrifugal) forces that I specified applies to the core(s) that have shifted from the central position, I was not referring to the entire Earth. My wording is very clear but you are distorting what I wrote.
In addition, your comment that the movement of the core would reestablish the Earth’s COM on the axis of rotation is the biggest error you have made. I must emphasize this point:

THE CONSOLIDATED CRUSTAL MASS OF PANGEA IS MUCH, MUCH SMALLER THAN THE CORE(S), THEREFORE THE SHIFT OF THE CORES RESULTS IN THE EARTH’S COM MOVING AWAY FROM THE AXIS OF ROTATION.

If I succeed in anything in this post it will be to get you to understand the above scenario. Your statement:
“4) As the core moves away from pangea, the wobble will decrease because COM will move back towards the axis of rotation. Once the COM is recentered at the axis of rotation, this force will be zero and no further movement will occur.”

Based on what I just wrote above, this is wrong. Yes, the wobble will decrease because the movement of the core(s) will offset the moment of inertia imbalance caused by the consolidation of continental land masses. It will not cause the COM to be located on the axis of rotation.
And therefore, your following statement is also incorrect:
“5) In this now balanced state, there will be an equal distribution of mass between pangea and its antipode, resulting in equal gravity at both sites.”

I won’t repeat your criticism of Laze’s Assumption #3 because it is too wordy and incorrect. There are two forces acting on the core(s). The vector force mentioned, as a result of Newton’s Third Law of Motion and the unbalanced centripetal/centrifugal forces on the core(s) once they move off center. Therefore, the result is radial forces on the core(s) away from the Earth’s center making the “squished” core(s) movement toward Pangea impossible.

In response to Laze’s Assumption #4, you wrote:
“This is simply nonsense. The denser mantle material will be filling in the space between the core and pangea, adding not subtracting gravity. Gravity is purely attractional; adding mass can only increase it.”
Wrong again! As the core(s) move away from Pangea, the Earth’s COM also moves in the same direction. The densest part of the mantle will move directly toward that new COM, hence away from Pangea and lowering ‘g’ on Pangea further.

In response to Laze’s Assumption #5, you wrote:
“Once again, total nonsence. The material being pushed upon has two options - flow up, or flow around the core to fill the void. Unless you're proposing crust-rupturing flows, the later will predominate.”

Wrong again! It can’t flow around, read my response to Laze’s Assumption#4. The resultant densest part of the mantle will still be a concentric (or as close to concentric as possible) ring layer around the shifted core(s) resulting in the COM moving further away from Pangea. Therefore, your “flow around” is wrong.

The balance of your statement are without merit. You statement that I have violated Newton’s laws are wrong. Actually, it is you who have misused and misinterpreted them making assumptions about “squishing” of the densest part of the mantle and your hemispheres example.
Please address the highlighted (in caps) statement I made earlier because it is the most important point in this post.