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

You could try reading the paper, or reading on the relationship between gravity and magnetism...

That said, it isn't rocket science. As paramagnetic crystals form in molten rock they orientate such that they align with the local magnetic field. Gravity bends magnetic fields, therefore the angle of these crystals can be used to determine the force of gravity bending those magnetic lines.


Already stated, and described in detail in the paper I provided.


Exactly. There are three possible options in terms of the paleogravity record - consistent change over the entirety of the earth (i.e. expanding earth), local changes (your hypothesis) or no changes (i.e. you and the expanding earth hypothesis are wrong).

The record shows the later - no change. Therefore neither your, nor the expanding earth, hypothesis are correct. I would be remiss to not consider all possibilities - which is why I included the expanding earth option.


What you believe is irrelevant, it is what you can prove that matters.

I provided scientific evidence in two separate forms which refutes your claim. Your only reply has been "I don't believe these papers are right".

You can either find evidence they are wrong, or the only logical thing to do is to concede that those papers refute your hypothesis.


No, that is basic physics. The height of a tide, relative to mean sea level, is determined by the force of gravity pulling down on the water (i.e. the gravity in the local region) and the gravitational force pulling the water upwards (determined by the distance between the moon and earth, in the case of lunar tides).

Keep in mind we use variations in the earths tidal forces on orbiting satellites to map existent gravitational anomalies (used to map the sea floor). Given that you're proposing changes in gravity approx seven orders of magnitude larger than the ones we observe today, the tidal record should have recorded those changes.

So if your hypothesis was correct, the lower gravity at pangea would have resulted in much larger tides during that time period (approx. double the height) - instead we see continually shrinking tides on a pangeal tidal flat.


But what moves is irrelevant; its how far it has to move that invalidates your hypothesis.

Lets assume that 50% the mass of the earth is shifted away (i.e. the 32% that constitutes the cores, plus a whopping portion of the denser mantle). To get your 54% reduction in gravity, ignoring the gravity of the lower-density backfill, would require a shift of:

Fg=0.5/r^2
0.54 = 0.5/r^2
r = sqrt(0.5/0.54) = sqrt(0.9259) = 0.96 earth radi

Or, in otherwords, to get your 54%G via a core/mantle shift, you would have to move the cores COM to a few km beneath the oceans crust - as in you'd have a tens-of-thousands of km high bulge opposite pangea.

If you take into account the "backfill", and in order to get your 54%G would require that your remove the core, and dense mantle, completely from the earth.

That's a far cry from the 1/6th earth radius your "formula" calculates.


But that is not the issue with your formula.

The only time your formula gives the correct answer is if you move the entirety of the earth relative to the observer - i.e. calculate the Fg on the observer standing on the earth, verses being several thousand km above the earths surface.

So it will not work for the situation you are trying to apply it to - where the earths distribution of mass changes, but the observer and earth remain stationary in regards to eachother.

Bryan