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

I already provided the citation - its in the first of those papers you still haven't bothered to read yet. That gravity determines the angle of a planets gravitational field lines is a very well understood phenomena, and is thoroughly discussed and cited in the forst paper I provided earlier.


And your evidence it is nonsense is...nothing.

Reality is that the hight of tides is directly determined by surface gravity, and thus tidal deposits can, and are, used as a proxy data for gravitational strength. Once again, the methodology and relevant citations for this fact are all throughly covered in the second paper I provided.

Just because you deliberately ignore that paper, and the citations within, doesn't change that reality one iota.


Actually, I took that into account. In short, its nothing but wishful thinking on your part. In your situation tidal effects would be very obvious in the record - as tides approach the lower G area they would increase in height - dramatically if we assume your 54% value to be correct. While you may not get an exact measure of G, the decrease in G (as observed in the form of an increase in tidal height) would be eminently obvious.

Once again, your wishful thinking does not eliminate the reality of science. At the end of the day, tidal heights are nothing more than a product of the relative gravitational force of the earth beneath the tidal bulge and the moon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Physics


That isn't double-speak; that is a statement of fact.

I have provided two papers, which measure the force of gravity at the earth surface, over geological time. Both of them refute your hypothesis, and both of them extensively cite the scientific literature in support of their methods and results. Your response to those papers has continually been "my opinion is they are wrong", without one iota of evidence that is the case.


LOL, your continued insistence to not read those papers is a stalling and diversionary tactic. After all, if you were serious about refuting these papers, it would only take you a half hour or so to read them.

But you and I both know that all of this is an excuse to not read something that challenges your belief system.

And, I'd point out, that I've explained what is in these papers extensivly - even quoted directly from them - in several of my posts. For example, #36322, 36349 and 36274.

Now, seeing as your premise is false - I've extensively described the papers, quoted from them, etc, what is your excuse now for not reading them?


You didn't; math does (although 7 is an exaggeration on my part). You are claiming a decrease of 0.46G. The size of the anomalies measured today are as small as 5uGal. Earth standard gravity is 980mGal.

So you claim: .46*980 = 450.8mGal change
We can detect: 0.005mGal chage
Fold difference: 90,160, AKA ~5 magnitudes of order difference.


Distorting = using math. Call the presses! LOL.


Meaningless? I've shown the math since day 1. And quite ironically, I've made the same assumptions that you did in yours - that we can treat the earths mass and radius as constants. Otherwise, it is newtons law of gravitation. That said, I did make a mistake, and have corrected it below - note that I fix my mistakes; maybe you can learn something from that...

Now, let me take your hand and walk you through this...

Fg = GM1M2/r^2, newtons law of gravitation.

On earth we can "convert" all of these into units of earthlyness, i.e. Fg = 1 earth gravity, GM1M2 = 1 earth mass*G, r = 1 earth radius.

So for the earth, Fg = GM1M2/r^2
Fg = 1/1^2
Fg = 1G

For any component of the earth we can then use fractions of these values to solve for the relative contribution of that component. I.E. for the unshifted core + mantle you are shifting (which I assumed weighted ~50% an earth mass), we get:

Fg(core) = 0.5/1^2 = 0.5G

For a 0.01 earth mass block of matter, located 1.2 radi away from the observer on the surface:
Fg = 0.01/1.2^2
Fg = 0.00694 earth G's

Now here is my small mistake. You are claiming a pangea G of 54%, I used this value for Fg. But my error is that we want to calculate the change in earths Fg as the core moves, not just the Fg of the core.

So before the shift the core+moving mantle provides 0.5G worth of gravity. It moves, reducing (by your claim) gravity by 0.46G, giving a final surface G of 0.54G at pangea.

Assuming the shift in G is due solely to the movement of the core (i.e. no "backflow" filling the space left behind and whatnot), the contribution of the core must be reduced to 0.5-0.46 = 0.04G. So we need to calculate the radius at which the core+mantle's gravitational attraction is reduced from 0.5 to 0.04G:

Fg(start) = 0.5 = 0.5/1^2 (r = 1)
Fg(end) = 0.04 = 0.5/r^2 (r = ?)

So:
0.04 = 0.5/r^2,
r = sqrt(0.5/0.04)
r = 3.54 earth radi

Since the core started at 1R, this is a shift of 2.54 radi

My mistake didn't help you much...LOL.

And don't forget, this shift will be reduced further by the backflow of mantle into the void left by the core, as this will move mass towards pangea, thus adding additional gravity.

Bryan