Didn't realize you had replied. My apologies for the lateness of my response.
Your next set of statements 1-5 are partially correct. One that is wrong is:
“5) As the core moves away from the pangea, the earths COM also moves away from pangea.”
YES! WE AGREE HERE.
“ Therefore the separation of COM and COR decreases”
NO, THE SEPARATION INCREASES BECAUSE THE COR REMAINS THE SAME.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
No matter what happens the COR should remain where it is (running from pole-to-pole).
When pangea forms the COM moves away from the COR; it moves
towards pangea, as pangea has more mass that the oceanic crust on the antiopde. So COR != COM in this situation. This creates a precession, and thus a force.
This precessionary force causes the core to move away from pangea - a statement to which you agree. Since the core has greater density than the surrounding material, this means that the COM will move in the same direction - also away from pangea.
So when pangea forms, COM moves
towards pangea, and thus
away from the COR. When the core moves, it moves
away from pangea and thus
towards the COR.
When the position of the COM = the position of the COR there will be no further processionary force, and thus no more movement of the core.
Your references to fluid mechanics and the inner/outer core movements don’t apply here. You can’t apply a laboratory-observed result to this situation.
Applying pseudoscientific standards on a science board, I see. Sorry, but that dog doesn't hunt.
The physics of fluid dynamics do not change from the lab to the "real world". They are the same whether you're talking about a cell in the blood or a star moving through a nebula. Heck, geologists use fluid dynamics all the time - to understand (amount other things) mantle plumes and the formation of the earths magnetic field.
Long story short, the laws of fluid dynamics are very much in play - and can no more be ignored than the laws of conservation of momentum and newtons laws.
The core(s), as I have explained many times, are subject to at least three forces:
1. The force pushing the core(s) away from Pangea (Newton’s 3rd Law as you previously described).
2. Centripetal/centrifugal forces on the core(s)as they move off-center, directed radially away from the center.
And last,
You're missing one thing here - conservation of momentum (and of energy). Anytime the core moves such that the COM is no longer centered on the COR, you will generate a processionary force (i.e. force #1) in the opposite direction. Keep in mind, all internal forces must have a net force of zero. Other wise you violate the law of conservation of momentum (and of energy).
As I said, you consistently make basic errors in regards to basic physical laws. This is a perfect example of this.
3. Just as in every planetary body, gravitational forces push all mass to the center of mass of the body; the densest material accumulating around the COM.
You're mistaking where most of the density comes from. Real-world fluids are not 100% compressible - the iron ore of the core is denser than the same ore at the surface. *Much* of the added mantle density near the core is due to pressure, not because denser material has sunk to the bottom.
Furthermore, mantle flows are slow. Depending on the rate you move the core at (and geologically speaking, you'd have to move it pretty fast to get a gravitational discontinuity) the forces of fluid flow will far exceed those of differential density - hence the flow of fluids will predominate, with density flows correcting any disequilibriums at later time points.
Again you are, IMO, using a lot of faulty, extraneous, erroneous information to try to distract viewers from the realization that you are wrong.
Faulty assumption = faulty conclusion.
I am correct - its as simple as that. The kinds of gravitational shifts you would get from moving the core is far smaller than what you propose. The minutia I write about get written simply to point out where you are making your errors. Take the fluid-flow example - it was provided as a direct refutation of your claims vis-a-vis mantle flow.
The simple facts, none of which you've even attempted to refute:
1) Your formula of r^2/d^2 only works if you shift the entire mass of the earth and does not calculate a delta.
2) At least two scientific papers have directly tested, and refuted, the idea that the force of gravity at the surface of the earth has changed over time.
3) That, using nothing more than the universal law of gravitation, I was able to derive the correct formula for calculating a gravitational shift, and
4) Your proposition requires a violation of the law of conservation of momentum/energy.
Your assumption that the center of rotation (COR) moves as the center of mass (COM) moves proves that your knowledge of physics needs improvement.
Seeing as I never said that, one has to wonder what your point is.
What I stated is the distance between COR and COM changes - which is both factually correct and something to which you agreed. The COR remains stationary - but the COM moves and the magnitude of the precessionary force correlates with the distance separating COM from COR.
Your comparing a laboratory style experiment in fluid mechanics to the inner/outer core dynamics only reenforces this.
So what you are saying is you disagree with the application of well established physical principals to questions regarding physics.
In that case we better throw out your claims vis-a-vis density, seeing as those principals were also established in a lab.
Or do we only ignore those scientific principals which violate your beliefs?
And, your constant whining about your calculations, which don’t apply here because of your assumptions, not being taken seriously is getting tiresome.
They are tiresome, as you constantly fail to address them.
You see, in the scientific world a discussion like this goes something like this:
Me: "There is a flaw in your calculation, and here is my math showing this to be incorrect"
You: "I disagree. Here is the [flaw, error, incorrect derivation] which caused your erroneous result.
In stead you took the route of "Your claim is wrong, and no, I will not provide evidence of your error".
So I'll keep dogging you about this until you man up and provide a real answer. Either you can show my math is wrong, using basic physical principals, or you have to accept is as correct and come up with a valid reason why YOUR numbers differ.
Your original request was to resolve the question of whether surface ‘g’ could change, and if so, by how much. Your original postings agreed that it could change.....now you have reversed course and state that it couldn’t. Not a very scientific approach IMO.
Once again, I never made the claim that no shift would occur. Why is it that you must lie about my position to make your "point". My point is, and always has been, the same:
Your math is wrong. The shifts you calculate are many times larger than what the laws of physics dictate they will be.
Everything else has simply been a refutation of your attempts to ignore that math.
Bryan
