Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum free energy in the gulf of mexico

Again? Was I wrong about something before?

Are you saying the heat generated by the spinning core exactly matches the heat loss through the surface of the Earth?




I was using that language to show how theoretical the spinning core theory really is. It's a theory just like the readioactive heat theory. Neither is somehow "right" because it's got "observations".



Which you know nothing about. I think I really was correct before. You believe everything you understand and disbelieve everything you don't understand. Common problem I've seen with lots of people, including myself, but I try to avoid doing it myself.

you asked
"Again? Was I wrong about something before?
"














belief in a theory is belief in speculation.

nobody believes in theories , they are simply there because
no one has yet disproved them.

like those that have fallen before , such as your flat earth theory , that so many believed was true.

its not really that all theories are wrong or all laws are wrong , its the way the theories and laws are put to pratcice.

Hehe I was asking for that :P Can you show that any of those things are wrong tho?

There's a couple that are obviously wrong and I used them satirically to emphasise a point. I think that should be clear.




Sure. I agree with you here. But theories include those that have fairly direct observations to support them. The spinning core theory is also just a theory (I'm not saying it's wrong, and never did). So is the round Earth theory. Sure they may be very convincing but they all do depend on some logic applied to the observations, just like the radioactive heat theory.

After all how do you know the Earth is round? Because you read it in a book? I know you haven't seen a photo of a spherical Earth from space because photos are all flat and only show what could be a flat disk. Have you tried travelling to the same destination by different routes and measured the distances and directions you went and found that on a flat earth they would lead you to different destinations? Even if you did that, that required some maths, and oh dear that makes it a complicated theoretical conclusion, not a direct observation.

I'll pick the easiest one.



no one can truly know someone elses beliefs.



what about all the experiments that were conducted before
there were theories , such as rubbing sticks together to make fire.

I think your confussing thinking with theories , but I dont believe you are , I just think you are.

I dont think that I can show you how you are wrong concerning
the environment , so you can just wait and find out for yourself.

Its not like you can hide from it.

and I dont think the earth is flat , and my only proof is
everyday knowledge.

but it could be a conspiracy or a government coverup
I just dont believe that it is.

I havent seen a flat planet yet or a flat moon , however most galaxies are pizza shaped sort of , but I have never seen a spherical galaxy either.

Im sure that there could be disk shaped remains of planets cores
due to impacts and centrifugal forces somewhere in the universe , and this could form a flat planet where life could exist , but I never have seen one.

The meaning changes when you consider the sentence immediately preceding it.


Yea true, I suppose there are those experiments that are more like "playing". Just trying random things and seeing what happens. But for most productive experiments you have some idea of the expected outcome, which you worked out from theory - even a simple theory like "I saw somebody else starting a fire by rubbing sticks, I hope it works for me too".




I forget what this relates to..

Actually the whole meaning of 'belief' is vague. For some people it's something unshakable, but for others it's allowed to be wrong without contorting them into a paradox of self-contradiction. Similar to 'think' as you used.

I'd better not forget that I owe you back :P

those are all correct , except the sarcasim about BP.

which ones do you believe to be a mistake on my part?

and why?

The only information available to you, me and everyone else is that these statements are wrong. You've tried to show they aren't but weren't able to, so you also have no reason to accept them yourself.



We established later that it wouldn't.



We established later that it wouldn't.




The number of pig's feet on earth today is higher than it was 100,000,000 years ago.




No. Because the weight of the water at the top applies pressure to the water at the bottom.



The information in text books comes from the research that gains wide acceptance. Some research never gains acceptance and never makes it into books - except as examples of uncertainty or historical mistakes, such as this:
Cold Fusion




"the speed of earthquake-generated seismic waves that pass through the inner core."
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol22/vol22_iss1/Core_Spin.html

Regarding the issue of theories not being reliable. Here's an exert from a book I just found by accident, which is consistent with my idea that theories implicitly depend on experimental observations:

"1.4 Importance of Experimental Results in the development of Theories

This section is not entitled '.. Development _and Validation_ of Theories' because a theory is not developed until it is validated, so validation is an essential stage of development!"

so which is it?

or does it simply depend on which way you need to use it?

when a theory is validated it is no longer a theory it is a fact.

I want to get your opinion on something.

if there is a 5 inch inside dia pipe in front of you.
and it is 28 ft tall.

it has a cap on the bottom so that it can hold water.

it has a pressure guage on the bottom cap of the 28 ft tall pipe.
it will read apx 28 ft x .433 psi = 12.124 psi when filled with water.

you then fill the pipe with water.

and you have a cap that has a connection on it for a vacuum pump on the top of the cap.

if you then connect the cap onto the top of the pipe there will be a small area below the cap that has air inside it.

if you place a vacuum on that air at the top using a simple hand vacuum pump , what would happen to the guage pressure at the bottom of the pipe.

1) the pressure guage will remain at 12.124 psi , because of the weight of the water.
in other words no change because the pressure guage is still affected by the pressure gradient in the water in the pipe.
and there is still the same amount of water weight above the pressure guage even though it no longer has atmospheric pressure pressing down on the water.

2) the pressure reading will drop because the pressure at the top of the water has decreased below 1 atm.

3) you choose to allow mommos to intervene at this time.

did you overlook the above post , I noticed you replied to
all of my replies except the one above this one.

It's both. We design experiments using some things we already expect to happen from previously developed theories or maybe in the case of the first ever experiment, on some untested theory. And a theory isn't properly developed until it's been tested by experiments.


For any interesting theory we can't actually test every possible thing it predicts, so we can never be certain it's correct.

Yep I did overlook it sorry. Haha I might start losing my place as top poster of the month :P




I vote for 2. And also vote for both reasons 1) and 2)

being top poster just means that you post alot , nothing else , the quality of your post is what counts.

you can become top poster simply by adding some useless
post to every thread in this forum.

-------------------------------------------------------
selecting two choices is not voting.

it is speculation.

let me clarify this attempt to get a answer from you by not allowing you to have a choice.

will the water pressure at the bottom drop or remain the same?

I was just joking.


Drop, as I said before. That is your option 2. I selected both reasons last time, not both conclusions. That's clear from my post.

so you agree that the water pressure will drop at the bottom.
and it will continue to drop if you keep putting more of a vacuum at the top.

and the pressure will continue to drop even to the point that
there is little or no water pressure pressing down on the bottom
of the pipes cap if you keep applying more vacuum.

so that the pressure guage at the bottom will not read any pressure.

none.
zero.

the water still has weight and the pipe itself along with the water in it still weighs the same minus the weight of the air that was pumped out.

Yep it'll continue to drop like this in absolute pressure (psi):

Top: 15 , bottom: 12+15=27
Top: 10 , bottom: 12+10=22
Top: 5 , bottom: 12+5=17
Top: 0 , bottom: 12+0=12

It's impossible to go below zero at the top, so the bottom will never approach zero.

That assumes you can actually achieve such low pressure without the water being sucked out as vapour.

The pressure at the bottom of the pipe is the result of the air pressure at the top PLUS the weight of the water.
If you remove the air at the top (get a vacuum) the pressure at the bottom will be reduced (exactly by one atmosphere).
But the weight of the water doesn't change, the weight of the water is still exerting pressure at the bottom.

You can double, triple or multiply the amount of vaccum at the top - it won't change a thing.

---

But as long as the weight of the water exerts less force then the pressure of 1 atm, it would be possible to open the bottom of the pipe, presse a cardboard against it, and the air pressure would hold the cardboard and the water column in place. If the water column is higher then 10.3 m the weight of the water will exert more pressure then 1 atm and this becomes impossible.
Regardless of the amount of vacuum at the top.

----

Please consider again a vacuum chamber with a piston.
1 vacuum on each side, one bigger (in volume) one smaler.
Why do you think the piston should move?
There is nothing on either side pressing against it!
The piston doesn't care if there is 1 mm³ of vaccum on the left side and 100 km³ of vacuum on the right side.
How should it even know?


In a more mechanical concept pressure of a gas is the result of the average inelastic collisions of the molecules in thermal motion.
If you remove some of the molecules these collisions happen less often, hence the pressure (the outward force produced by collisions) is reduced.
If you remove all molecules, you get no collisions, ergo no pressure. But still nothing is exerting a "suction" of any kind.


Or maybe consider this:
you have a chamber divided by a piston (a closed system).
On one side of the piston the chamber is filled with a gas at 1 atm. on the other side as well.
Now remove half of the gas on the left side.
In your opinion the left side now has a "half vacuum" (ok for me) resulting in a suction force (wrong).
The piston is pressed to the left side, because the over pressure on the right side, not sucked by the low pressure on the left.
If we now move this chamber into space and open the right side to the vacuum of space (trillions of cubic light years of vacuum), the piston will be pressed outwards (by 0.5 atm pressure).
So in your world the "half vaccum" at the left is at the same time producing a "suction force" AND applying pressure.
Impossible. How should the gas in the isolated chamber know of the changed conditions in the other chamber?.


---

Sorry, somehow I got carried away...