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

I should setup a palm-reading shop - I'm clearly clairvoyant. Pre wrote exactly what I predicted he would.



And here we see pre lying to cover the fact that he cannot address the meat of my post.

He is 100% correct that I mistakenly stated 10^24J; when in fact I mean 10^24kJ. When he pointed that out I owned upto it.

For the unit-challanged a kJ is equal to 103 J, so 1024kJ is the exact same as 1027J.

And here we have pre's next red herring:



Yep, pre is basing his arguments against me on the statements of a man who doesn't understand the simple difference between an open and closed system, or newtons 3 laws.


But lets not loose track of the main points:

1) Pre quoted the first big number in the citation I provided as evidence I was wrong - despite the fact that the entirety of the paper was based around disproving that impact energy.

2) Despite providing step-by-step instructions on how to extract the impact energies in the paper I provided, pre has so far failed to do so. Instead he brings up red herring after red herring as proof I "lie".

3) As of the lines below, this is now the 8th time I've challenged pre to deal with 2 scientific publications that directly refute his hypothesis. He has consistently failed to do so:

McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.p



I think he got tired of us laughing at him and his scientific illiteracy. Maybe oneday you'll do the same...

...oh wait, you did. Then you broke your promise and came back

Bryan

ImagingGeek,

I’ll try to keep my responses as brief and to the point as possible:
Yes, no one has measured the relationship between core movement and distribution of the Earth’s mass (that I know of) which is why this theory is a radical one.

Mantle viscosity near the core being very high???.....need a reference for that. Hot-spot volcanic plumes originate there.

The forces on the core(s) (in reaction to the creation/dismantling of Pangea) are not dependent on the proximity to the center of rotation, they are the result of Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which you stated earlier.

Continental drift today is on the order of .5 to 1.5 inches per year. I doubt whether core-shift movement couldn’t keep pace at this rate. We’re addressing processes that took place over millions of years.
“In picture 3 we have restored equilibrium - the core is now off-set towards pangea's antipode. Since the core is denser than the mantle, this shifts mass towards pangea's antipode. The net effect is the amount of mass (i.e. in kg) between the center of rotation and pangea is now the same as the amount of mass between the center of rotation and pangea's antipode.”

How could this be true? The Center Of Rotation (COR) remains at the Earth’s geographic center with both cores displaced toward’s Pangea’s antipode (i.e., to the left of the COR in your picture). Clearly, there is more mass to the left of the COR than to the right.

My statement that the ratio of Pangea’s lowest G (near Pangea’s equatorial region) to current G is not wrong. The value of the ratio ( r^2/d^2) is dependent upon the Earth’s new center of mass, and therefore the amount of movement of the cores. THE GTME POSITS A VERY LARGE MOVEMENT OF THE CORES.
“1) Your math is wrong, ergo your last response is invalid.

2) Even if we take your case at face-value, without values your claims are meaningless - you would need pretty large movement of the core to get a d2/r2 ratio to provide a 1-2% change in surface gravity.”

Your math is wrong, plug in some numbers into the above ratio or review the last part of this response.

In reply to my statements about the rapid breakup of Pangea around 65mya resulting in pulses if increasing surface gravity and extinction, you wrote:
“Still doesn't fit the fossil record. The major periods of breakup were not associated with mass-extinctions, but rather increases in species diversity:

No extinctions around 65mya???? The graph you provided shows otherwise but a clearer image is:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/03/10/mn_extinction.jpg

On the reduction in size of the sauropods, you wrote:
“The shifts in body shape you claim occur were not universal across all large caldes - which is what would have to happen if gravity was the cause.”

Do you have any references to support this statement? The effect would have been most obvious on the largest and tallest dinosaurs......and that’s what we see.

“Large sauropods are found at all elevations near the KT-boundary; picking the one continent where there numbers appear to have dropped doesn't bolster your argument, but instead is a clear-cut case of you cherry-picking data to "prove" your model.”

I assume you meant “latitudes” when you wrote “elevations.”
I’m not “cherry-picking”...if you have any references to prove otherwise, I’d like to see them.

“Sauropods are found upto the KT boundary, but not beyond it. So it is fair to claim they all disappeared at the KT boundary. “

Your link seems to be broken, here’s one:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090501-dinosaur-lost-world.htm

This is consistent with the GTME. The dinosaurs that survived the K-T boundary were found in a near-equatorial region where surface gravity would be at minimum values compared to other parts of Pangea, ie., not in Canada, Australia, Siberia, New Zealand, etc. And, their survival for only another 500,000 years has to be explained......increasing surface gravity is my explanation.

You wrote:
“But in this context, rapid can be very well defined. For your model to work the breakup must occur faster that the core can shift.”
No, they are simultaneous........one is a reaction to the other in small increments.
I have to echo my previous statements that the breakup of Pangea was at its most rapid rate around 65mya, primarily in a longitudinal direction. Study the movement of the subcontinent of India at this time. It moved from the southern tip of Africa to current position of Reunion Island (the location of the hot-spot volcano that formed the Deccan Traps) in a geologically brief period.

On Courtillot and his views, no “cut and paste from wikipedia” involved. I have his book right in front of me as I type this. Nothing I’ve written here has been copied from anywhere.
I won’t debate the volcanic vs. asteroid extinction theories because, as you might have guessed, I believe surface gravitational changes caused the extinctions. BTW, your link theorizes that multiple asteroids fell during the K-T period, I didn’t see any support for extinction. I introduced Courtillot’s work not to support the volcanic theory of extinction; his pointing out the connection between hot-spot volcanic eruptions and extinction periods actually supports the GTME. I’ll explain this in a subsequent posting.

On the lack of a “bone pile” at the time of impact I would repeat my view, which is:
The impact should have created sand storms, mudslides, tsunamis, etc. which would have buried large numbers of land vertebrates, including dinosaurs. I have not heard of any, have you?
In answer to your references about an “abrupt end to dinosaur fossilization at the K-T boundary I would refer you back to my link describing Fassett’s so-called “lazarus dinosaurs” that made it past the K-T boundary and survived for 500,000 years.

Your statement that the rapid gravitational changes would be accompanied by changes in the formation of sedimentary rocks is incorrect. There might be changes in slumping of mud or volcanic flows, which would probably be weak evidence to pursue but not sedimentation. Paleomagnetic data verifying gravitational change?? Please explain.
Glad you mentioned Paleomagnetic data because there is some that support the GTME. The two superchrons, the Kiaman long reversed superchron and the Cretaceous long normal superchron were extremely long periods when the Earth’s north and south poles did not reverse polarity. Clearly, something unusual was happening related to the cores and/or the core/mantle boundary. I have not found a credible explanation for this. The Kiaman superchron occurred as the continents were in their final consolidation phase forming Pangea, meaning (according to GTME) the core(s) were moving to their furthest distance away from the Earth’s center. The Cretaceous superchron occurred as Pangea was breaking up, the core(s) moving back toward their central location. And, very significantly the polarity of the two superchrons are reversed. Could the movement of the core(s) in two different directions during these two periods, per GTME, explain the difference in polarity? Quite possible and shifting cores could explain the supershrons.

On computer modeling vs. experiments using extant birds, I have to repeat my belief that the latter will produce more accurate results. Aeronautical programs are probably very accurate for designing and testing fixed wing aircraft powered by constant energy supplied means, not for flapping pterosaurs. Yes, “ pterosaurs are not birds” but they are more like birds than airplanes.
The same applies to computer models for sauropods. How did the models handle the high blood pressure required to pump blood to the brains of the dinosaurs? Did they provide for the additional mass of gastroliths? Did they use bone, muscle, ligaments of extant mammals as a reference? If they did, that has to be rejected per your “pterosaurs are not birds” analogy.
Dr. Roger Seymour of the Adelaide University believes that the large sauropods could not position their necks vertically to feed:
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news180.html

Yet other scientists said they did: just google the words dinosaurs held head high
and you will get many websites.
I only know of one way to reconcile the two views.....I think you know my answer.

Your inner/outer core calculations are superfluous and incorrect. All that is needed is the ratio I supplied earlier:
r^2/d^2 Where r is the radius of the Earth and d is the distance from the center of mass of Pangea to the new center of mass of the Earth after the core shifting. YES, I BELIEVE THE CORE SHIFT WAS SUBSTANTIAL WITH THE INNER CORE NOT REMAINING AT THE CENTER OF THE OUTER CORE.
A simple example should suffice:
The Earth has a diameter of 12 units
The Earth’s center of mass shifts from position 6 to position 8 (i.e. 8 units away from Pangea)
The ration of the new G to the old G is r^2/d^2= 6^2/8^2= 36/64= 56%
A shift from position 6 to position 9 gives 44%.

Laze

ImagingGeek,

The current theory, the Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction (GTME) is supported by not only the things just described, i.e., the extreme size of some dinosaurs, their near equatorial habitats per the theorized gravitational gradient and the disappearance of all non-avian dinosaurs near the K-T boundary, but by other evidence.

Courtillot makes the case for hot-spot volcanos as an alternative to the asteroid impact mode of extinction. He correctly points out the numerous extinction events that have occurred in the last 250my that were accompanied by hot-spot volcanos. These volcanos are believed to originate at the core/mantle boundary, producing a plume that rises to the Earth’s surface. As you know, the hot-spot volcano that formed the Deccan Traps in India was active during the K-T transition. The killing mechanism of both the hot-spot volcanos and asteroid impacts are believed to be similar: sulfur compounds ejected into the atmosphere causing a cooling of temperatures followed by a global warming from carbon dioxide, in addition to the effects of other contaminates injected into the atmosphere. However, no explanation for the cause of hot-spot volcanos is offered.

The GTME does offer an explanation for the hot-spot volcanos, which is that they result from movements of the core(s). And, of course, the core movements are the result of movement of large continental masses. Based on this, during the last 200my when Pangea rifted and broke apart, each significant movement of continental mass resulted in a pulse of two things: a plume of basaltic lava that would form a hot-spot volcano eruption and a pulse of surface gravity increase. Therefore, the coincidence of the extinction events and hot-spot volcanos are tied together and the extinction events, according to GTME, were the result of gravitational increases and not the result of cooling, global warming or other volcanic/asteroid causes.

The Deccan Traps produced a very large number of volcanic flows over a period of perhaps a million years (although the duration is debated). Therefore, the GTME posits that each flow corresponds to a major movement of continents. The continents, during this period, had separated from Pangea and were moving apart rapidly, primarily longitudinally. This movement would have resulted in major core shifting; moving the core(s) toward the central location while initiating the plumes. Since the K-T transition, the magnitude of hot-spot volcano’s flood basalt outpouring has steadily declined, something that would be expected because continental movement would have a corresponding lesser effect on core movement as the land masses moved further and further away from the consolidated Pangea position.

The common belief that an asteroid or even volcanism caused the K-T extinctions, based on the GTME, must challenged. It is not disputed that they can cause local extinctions but to be able to wipe out entire global species required a global force. I believe changes to surface gravitation was that force.

Laze

Preearth:
You are about to exceed the tolerance level for rude and insolent behavior. One more post calling people names and accusing them of being liars, etc., and you will find yourself edited out of existence. Show some self respect and refrain from digging in the ditch of personal attacks. It adds nothing to the discussion and makes you look like a fool. Mind your manners, or I'll start editing your messages.

As a junior member, it grieves me to witness more senior members resorting to ad hominem attacks and the use of bold type and capitals, that must be tantamount to shouting. However, there are a couple of, perhaps naïve questions I would like to ask Preearth.

1. I take the point about the bullet and the apple, but would the outcome not be rather different if the radius of the bullet happened to be about 90% of that of the apple? Furthermore, if both were around the same density as the apple, I suspect the outcome would be more like apple sauce than an enlarged apple.

2. “The planetary fusion probably took less than a day…….This rapid cooling was due to the new lava being immersed in the water of the oceans.” Surely an impact of this magnitude would vaporise any surface water, and your timescale would not allow for the reformation of oceans. How, then, could the new lavs be immersed in water?

I wrote a lot, but since edited to cut it down. Long post made short - most of your critisisms were answered in the citations I've provided previously. Maybe you should try reading them, instead of ignoring them and then pretending those materials were never provided. I have only one point of yours I wish to address at this point. If we can get past this, than we can go back to your other points:


1) Prove the calculations are incorrect. Simply stating so doesn't make it so. For that matter, putting your faulty (see below) math up as a counter example only weakens your case.

2) They are 100% relevant, in that they put an upper limit on the degree of gravitational shift which could occur, using nothing more than newtonian physics. And they show that the most extreme possible shift you could have - the core sitting immediately under one side of the earth - the shift you get is smaller than the one you propose.

If you think Newton was wrong, say it. Otherwise, show where the calcs are wrong. If you don't then you are going the same route as pre - rejecting evidence that opposes your beliefs without a valid and demonstratable reason to do so.

That is wrong is so many ways:

1) You're treating the core as though it were the entire mass of the earth, which is completely false. The cores combined are ~32% the total mass of the earth. So even if we take your calcs at face value, the shift is 56% of 32% the earths mass, not 56% of the total mass. So your shift isn't 56%, but rather 56% of 32% = 17.92%.

2) Your calculations ignore that the area formerly occupied by the core will be filled by mantle. The mantle weighs, per unit volume, 4.5g/cm^2 while the cores average 11.5g/cm^2. Ergo, the effect of the core shift will be reduced by 4.5/11.5 = 39% due to replacement of the core by mantle. So the 17.92% now drops by 7.01% to 10.91%.

3) Your math is fundamentally flawed. Gravity is dependent on radius, not on diameter. Ergo, you cannot use diameter as the "measuring stick" by which you position objects.

4) Of course, none of that matters since your formula is completely and utterly wrong. Lets derive it from the beginning:

The force of gravity at earths surface is determined by:
Fg = G*m1*m2/r^2

Lets use a consistent test-mass (m1) of 1kg. In the case of the earth (and core), mass (m2) is constant and therefore the G*m1*m2 part of the equation stays constant. Lets use 'a' as the symbol for G*m1*m2. If 'a' for earth = 1, than 'a' for the core = 0.32. But sticking to symbols, our formula now becomes:

Fg = a/r^2, which is the same as

Fg = a(r^-2)

Unshifted, the core is b units (6 in your example, but lets stick with symbols) from the earths surface, therefore under this case the gravity will be:

Fg(start) = a(b^-2)

Shifted, the core is c units from the earths surface (8 in your example from pangea, 4 from the antipode. Under these cases:

Fg(end) = a(c^-2)

We're interested in the change of gravity during the shift, we need the delta(Fg), which is:

Delta(Fg) = Fg(end)-Fg(start)
Delta(Fg) = a(c^-2) - a(b^-2)

This can be written as Fg = a/c^2 - a/b^2

Note how different that is from your b^2/r^2.

To use your numbers we need to convert your units into fraction of an earth radius:

Unshifted = 6 units, therefore 1 unit of radius = 1/6

So unshifted we have 6*1/6 = 1 earth radi

Shifted = 8 units, therefore 8*1/6 = 1.3333 (4/3rds) earth radi

Using your numbers, and a core of 0.32 earth masses (i.e. a = 0.32):
Delta(Fg) = a/c^2 - a/b^2
Delta(Fg) = [0.32/1.333^2] - [0.32/1^2]
Delta(Fg) = 0.18 - 0.32
Delta(Fg) = 0.14,

Which is 14% of a G, a tiny fraction of the 54% your incorrect formula provided. And this formula still does not take into account the gravity of the magma which will fill the former position of the core.

The magma which fills the core will have a G*m1*m2 of:
a' = 0.32*0.39 = 0.1248

Since this "filler" is at the former position of the core, r = 1, therefore Fg(filler) = 0.1248/1^2 = 0.1248.

Delta(Fg) now becomes:
Delta(Fg) = Fg(end)- Fg(start) + Fg(filler)
Delta(Fg) = 0.18 - 0.32 + 0.1248
Delta(Fg) = -0.0152

Which is 1.52% decrease in gravity at pangea.

Bryan

Welcome to the thread, bill. Don't worry, you'll soon be writing ALL IN CAPS, and in bold, AND SOMETIMES BOTH.. Its called frustration...

To come back to the apple example, pre's original example doesn't even stand upto scrutiny. An apple, shot with a bullet, explodes:



Video, relevant time point is 0:21

And you are 100% correct; scale up the size of the "bullet" and you'll end up with something between apple sauce and apple juice.

I didn't even think of the vaporizing water thing.

Bryan

ImagingGeek,

I did write “Your inner/outer core calculations are superfluous and incorrect.” Your calcs in the last posting are also incorrect and based on erroneous assumptions.

You stated that “You’re treating the core as though it were the entire mass of the earth....”
Not so, I have used a lot of care in all of my prior posts to describe relevant distances as, for example, “the distance from the CENTER OF MASS of Pangea to the new CENTER OF MASS of the Earth” after the core(s) shift, I have not stated “to the shifted cores” when calculating gravitational changes.

You have, in your latest calculation, switched those two terms:

“Shifted, the CORE is c units from the earths surface (8 in your example from pangea, 4 from the anitpode.” If you reread my statement which you have inserted near the top of your post you will see this.
Therefore, you cannot compare the results you get with those of mine.

My calc, using r^2/d^2 as the ratio of lowered G to current G, in which I repeatedly defined ‘d’ as the distance from the CENTER OF MASS of Pangea to the new CENTER OF MASS of the Earth is based on Newton’s Gravity Law.
You wrote: “If you think Newton was wrong, say it.” Definitely not, this whole theory is based on Newton’s laws.

You wrote:
“Your math is fundamentally flawed. Gravity is dependent on radius, not on diameter. Ergo, you cannot used diameter as the ‘measuring stick’ by which you position objects.”

I’m not sure if you are confusing my use of the letter ‘d’ for distance with diameter because nowhere in my posting do I use diameter as a variable to describe changes in gravitation. BTW, your statement is incorrect.......gravity depends on the inverse square of distance, not on radius.

Since you replaced CENTER OF MASS with CORE in your calcs, they must be discarded for comparison to my calcs, which are not “....completely and utterly wrong.” They conform 100% with Newton’s laws.

Even though your calcs must be discarded, I will point out another error:
You wrote:
“Delta (Fg)=Fg(end) - Fg(start) +Fg(filler)”
This is incorrect because you have ignored the effect of the filler before the shift. The equation should be:
Delta (Fg)=Fg(end) - Fg(start) +Fg(filler-end) - Fg(filler-start)

The most important erroneous assumption that you have made is one that I also made at one time:
You, and at one time I, assumed that when the outer core shifts off center, it maintains its spherical shape. This would not be the case, centripetal forces would distort its shape; the greater the core shift the greater the flattening distortion. It would be comparable to putting a blown-up balloon into a somewhat larger rigid spherical container and then pushing the balloon against the side of the chamber. In the case of the outer core, this would shift the CENTER OF MASS further from the Earth’s center, i.e., further away from Pangea, than if the outer core retained its spherical shape.

Laze

Stating so does not prove it. Show where the math is wrong. Show where a calculation was done wrong. Show where the calcualtions are inconsistent with basic physics.

Saying "your math is wrong" is no different then a kid throwing a temper-tantrum.

This is a science board. Show us your science. If you want to make non-specific whines about how the mean scientists don't buy your incorrect math, I can direct you to a creationist board or two.



And another math fail. From your post (#35896):

The Earth has a diameter of 12 units
The Earth’s center of mass shifts from position 6 to position 8 (i.e. 8 units away from Pangea)
The ration of the new G to the old G is r^2/d^2= 6^2/8^2= 36/64= 56%

Where in the above calculation did you account for the core only weighting 32% the total mass of the earth? Where did you account for the back flow of mantle that would fill that space?

The answer, of course, is you didn't. Ignoring that your "formula" runs counter to the physics of gravity, the only way you could get a reduction in gravity of that size is by moving the entire earth. The core is not enough.

In fact, we can figure out exactly how far you would have to move the entier earth, to get Fg down to 0.56G:

Fg = G*m1*,2/r^2
0.56G = 1/r^2
r = 1.33631 earth radi

You'll notice that the size of the shift - 1.33 (AKA 4/3), is exactly equal to the size of the shift in your example (8/6, AKA 4/3).

The math says you are wrong. Either prove that I did something wrong with the math, or show us the derivation of your d^2/r^2 formula.



Really? Then why is it you are calculating changes in gravitational force without actually calculating a change? Changes (deltas), since you seem to have forgotten your math, are always calculated via additive or subtractives; what you have is a ratio, not a difference.

And, for that matter, it is impossible to derive your formula from newtons law of gravitation.

And if I'm wrong on that later point - PROVE IT. Derive your formula, and post it here.

I've put my chips on the table; strange that you have not.



Sure you do. Your D of 8 can only be mapped using diameter. If using radius, as you should be using, that would be 2 (or -2, depending on how you label your axis).


The inverse square of what? I'll give you a hint - it isn't the inverse square of the diameter!

I cannot believe you actually wrote the above - gravity is dependent on the inverse square of the RADIUS. To say gravity is not dependent on the radius is like saying John Lennon has nothing to do with the Beetles. Radius, but the way, is the 'r' in newtons's universal law of gravitation:

Fg = G*m1*m2/r2
..................^ That guy right there



Prove it. Derive your formula from either Newtons law of gravitation, or general relativity, and post the derivation here. If you cannot, then your formula does not conform.

I'd point out that the formula I derived IS based on newtons law of gravitation, and I posted my derivation here. Lets see your response...



And there it is folks - no reason as to why they should be discarded, only that they should. Of course anyone reading this thread knows why they must be discarded - because they conflict with your beliefs. You're like the Catholic church, demanding that everyone ignore Galleleo proof of a heliocentric solar system. And your reason is the same as theirs - you've got some random scribbles which you believe over properly derived, and evidenced, science.



The reason I did not add in that number is because it is extremely difficult to deal with. That filler, pre-shift, would be in a roughly hemispherical shell. Because its flow is not even (i.e. most of its flow will come from the side where the core moves to), it cannot be treated as a point mass. A crude approximation would be to treat it as if it all were a point mass, located mid-way between core and the surface, opposite pangea. The mass will be the same as the mass of the filler, so:

a' = 0.32*0.39 = 0.1248 (from my last post)
r' = 0.6769, from pangea = 1.6769

Fg(pre-filler) = 0.1245/1.6769^2
Fg(pre-filler) = 0.04427G

And from before:
Fg(start) = 0.32
Fg(end) = 0.18
Fg(filler) = 0.1248

Delta(Fg) = Fg(end) - Fg(start) +Fg(filler-end) - Fg(filler-start)
Delta(Fg) = 0.18 - 0.32 + 0.1248 - 0.04427
Delta(Fg) = -0.05947

Still a small fraction of the 54% you're claiming; in fact its pretty much 1/10th of what you claimed.



No, the center of mass would remain the same; angular momentum dictates that - unless you're planning on breaking not only the laws of gravity, but also the law of conservation of energy as well.

As I've challenged 3 or 4 times above - SHOW US THE MATH. Starting from known physical principals, derive d^2/r^2.

If you cannot show us that, then you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm gone for a week on holiday - that'll give you plenty of time to write out the math and post it here. If you can hammer it out in the next 6 or so hours, I may be able to reply before I leave (but I doubt it).

Bryan

ImagingGeek,

I don't want to spoil your holiday......so I'll delay my response until you get back.

Enjoy your holiday.

Laze

ImagingGeek,

In reference to your calculations, You asked:
“Show me where the math is wrong.”
“Show where the calculations are inconsistent with basic physics.”

I will show you where you have made errors in your basic assumptions that are inconsistent with basic physics, making all of your calculation irrelevant. Let’s start with basic physics:


In response to my stating that:
“BTW, your statement us incorrect.....gravity depends on the inverse square of distance, not on radius”, you responded:

“The inverse square of what? I’ll give you a hint - it isn’t the inverse square of distance!”
“I cannot believe you actually wrote the above - gravity is dependent on the inverse square of the RADIUS. To say gravity is not dependent on the radius is like saying John Lennon has nothing to do with the Beetles(sic). Radius, but(sic) the way, is the ‘r’ in newton’s universal law of gravitation:

Fg = G*m1*m2/r^2
.............^ That guy right there”

I’m shocked because what you just wrote is totally wrong. This is something one learns in high school physics.

Sorry, “That guy right there” IS THE VARIABLE FOR DISTANCE in Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation:


“EVERY PARTICLE OF MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE ATTRACTS EVERY OTHER PARTICLE WITH A FORCE WHICH IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE PRODUCT OF THE MASSES OF THE PARTICLES AND INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THE SQUARE OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM.”

This equation is usually written as:
F = G mm’/r^2
Where F is the resultant force
m is one mass
m’ is the other mass
r is the distance between m and m'
(NOT RADIUS)
G is the gravitational constant

The letter ‘r’ is used, I assume, because Newton was dealing with the Earth (and maybe the Moon) when he developed this law. Therefore, ‘r’ was used in writing this law because the radius of the Earth was the specific value of the variable distance that he was concerned with.


Let’s derive my ratio of the lowest G (the ‘F’ in Newton’s Law stated above) to today’s G:
To avoid confusion between the gravitational constant G and the force of gravity (which we have been using ‘G’ to represent) let’s use lower case ‘G’ (i.e., ‘g’) to represent the force of gravity. In other words ‘g’ represents the weight of, in this case, of an object on the surface of Pangea (near Pangea’s center of mass). Also, for clarity sake, let’s use ‘d’ as the distance in Newton’s Law.

The weight of an object (today), of mass m using m’ as the mass of the Earth, on the surface is:

g =Gmm’/d^2 =Gmm’/r^2 Where the value of r is the radius of the Earth.

If the center of mass of the Earth shifts away from the object on the surface so that the distance between the object and the new center of mass of the Earth is ‘x’ then the new weight of the object is:

g’=Gmm’/d^2 = Gmm’/x^2

The ratio of the new weight to the old weight of the object is:
g’/g =(Gmm’/x^2) / (Gmm’/r^2) =r^2/x^2

Since I was using ‘d’ instead of ‘x’, remembering that ‘d’ is not diameter, my previous references were stated as r^2/d^2. I hope this clarifies things. As you can see, there is no conflict with Newton’s laws and I was not using diameter as a variable.

Next, let’s examine why your assumptions are not valid by going over my assumptions, most of which have already been stated:

1. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #1:
The process of consolidation of the masses forming Pangea caused a wobble in the Earth’s rotation. This wobble was countered by a force (Newton’s Third Law) whose action was to move the core(s) away from Pangea. For simplicity, I’ll say that this net force could be described as a single vector force between Pangea’s center of mass and the center of mass of the core(s) (at least initially).

2. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #2:
When the core(s) moved from the Earth’s center (also the axis of rotation), the inner core no longer remained at the center of the outer core; it could move independently within the molten core under the force of the previously mentioned vector force and also subject to the, now unbalanced, centripetal forces.

3. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #3:
When the core(s) moved from the Earth’s center, the outer core, like the inner core, was subject to the vector force previously mentioned as well as the centripetal forces. These two forces would have distorted the shape of the outer core, the effect of which would be to shift the center of mass of the Earth further than if the outer core were able to remain spherical. An analogy would be a balloon that is depressed at its center (by the vector force) and the opposing surface spreading out due to the centripetal forces.

4. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #4:
As in any planetary body, density increases with depth. The densest part of the mantle surrounds the outer core. When the outer core shifts antipodally from Pangea, the spherical volume that is left vacant by the shift is filled with the densest material from the mantle. Hence, an additional movement of the center of mass (COM) of the Earth away from Pangea. This is a nonlinear movement of the COM; the rate of increase increases with shifting of the outer core.

5. LAZE’S ASSUMPTION #5
When the outer core shifts antipodally from Pangea, the densest part of the mantle at the leading edge of the outer core (i.e., furthest away from Pangea) is shifted away from Pangea, again moving the COM of the Earth further away from Pangea. This is a nonlinear movement of the COM; the rate of increase increases with shifting of the outer core.

I believe all of the above assumptions are reasonable and are based on “basic physics.”

ImagingGeek, Your calcs are based on assumptions that are in conflict with those that I have listed above and are not “real world” assumptions. As a matter of fact, you have not even listed your assumptions; I can only guess what they are. For example, using my assumptions number 4 and 5, you cannot just switch the “filler” from one side of the outer core to the other ignoring the movement of the densest part of the mantle and resultant shifting COM which I describe. Your statement that the “filler” on the trailing edge of the shifting outer core where “most of its flow will come from the side where the core moves to” is wrong. The densest part of the mantle will always move directly toward the new COM.

If I may quote you:
“This is a science board. Show us your science. If you want to make non-specific whines about how mean scientists don’t buy your incorrect math, I can direct you to a creationist board or two.”
There are other quotes that you have made that apply to you as well but I won’t waste the keystrokes needed to repeat them here.

I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but your calcs must be discarded. I have shown that a shift in the COM of the Earth not only involves the cores but also the densest part of the mantle and the outer core does not maintain its spherical shape which is part of the basis for your facile analysis.

We can exchange views on the other things you mention in your last post including
Galileo and the Catholic Church, the Beatles and John Lennon, Creationism and angular momentum in a future post, after we can agree on the magnitude of a change in ‘g’, per the request in your next-to-last post:

“If we can get past this, then we can go back to your other points.”


Laze

I'm sad to say, this is exactly the reply I was expecting. As I expected, you completely failed to show my math was wrong. You completely failed to show my math was inconsistent with the Newtons Universal Laws of Gravitation. You completely failed to support your position, other than to repeat the exact same things you said before.

To keep this short, in order to disprove my math in a scientific manner you simply cannot say "it is wrong". What you need to to discredit my math in anything vaugly resembling a scientific argument is:

• Show where the math is inconsistent with physical laws. You did not.
• Show where an error in the derivation was made. You did not.
• Show that the calculation does not produce the expected result given a known configuration. You did not.

Simply saying "your math is inconsistent with my assumptions" doesn't cut it - as we'll see below, your assumptions do not pass scientific muster - or high school physics for that matter. You can either disprove my math using the laws of physics - not personal assumption - or you have no scientific argument against it.

No, the letter 'r' is used because radius is the correct measure to use. The universal law of gravitation assumes point masses; in the case of non-point masses you must use the radius (i.e. distance from the center of mass) for the math to work.

Now, lets look at your "derivation":

You've not added anything here you didn't have before, and the math is still wrong (or at least isn't saying what you want it to).

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.

Keep in mind that a core shift would only move a portion of the earths mass - your formula does not take that into account. Nor does it take into account the gravity of the material which fills in the space. All it does is measure the relative change in gravity when the distance between two masses (the earth and the observer - AKA m and m') is increased.

And its easy to prove this is the case. Take an example where we rip the earth into two equal hemispheres, and move the second hemoisphere 4 radi away:

Before the rip:
Fg = Gmm'/1^2 = 1

After the rip:
Fg = 0.5(Gmm')/1^2 + 0.5(Gmm')/4^2 = 0.5 + 0.03125 = 0.53125

Your calculation:
1^2/4^2 = 1/16 = 0.0625

Obviously the wrong answer. But we can get that answer if we move the whole planet to 4 earth radi:
Fg = Gmm'/4^2 = Gmm'/16 = 1/16 = 0.0625

That there is proof-positive you math is wrong - the only way we can get your result is to move the entire earth, rather than just the piece.

This is correct. Keep in mind that under this condition the earths center of mass is to one side of the earths center of rotation, due to the unbalanced mass of the crust.

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.

Its so easy:
1) With an unshifted core, the earths center of mass (COM) lies between the axis of rotation and pangea, due to the extra thickness of the crust at pangea.
2) This imbalance will create a precession (wobble) of the axis of rotation, as the axis of rotation will, itself, rotate around the center of mass (tracing out a circle, if observed from a pole).
3) That wobble produces a force opposite to the direction of pangea, this will "push" the cores away from pangea.
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 recenetered at the axis of rotation, this force will be zero and no further movement will occur.
5) In this now balanced state, there will be an equal distribution of mass between pangea and its antipod, resulting in equal gravity at both sites.

That is what physics states will happen.

You're missing an important point here - that "compressive" force existed before any core shits, as it is due to the rotation of the earth and not the uneven mass distribution. The compression you speak of occurs along the rotational axis. That is why the earth has a smaller polar circumference than it's equatorial circumference. It will not be changed by anything other than changes is the rotational velocity of the earth - the law of conservation of momentum dictates that.

Nor does this provide you with a larger gravitational shift. The distortion will be centered on the cores center of mass, and extend evenly in all directions. Ergo, an equal amount of the "squished" core will be displaced towards pangea, and an equal amount "squished" away from pangea. The law of conservation of momentum dictates this. The end effect is the center of mass remains the same - you do end up with more mass along the plane of rotation, but the center of mass (from where we calculate gravity) remains the same.

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.

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.

The first is reasonable, the rest are totally wrong and could only have been derived in the complete absence of Newtons 3 laws and the conservation of momentum.

And once again, you miss the point. This isn't about how you assume the world works, but rather it is about what physics dictate must happen.

Your assumptions fall afoul of the newtons lows of motion, and the law of conversation of momentum. That means they are wrong - start with a wrong assumption, come to a false conclusion.

The very fact you are unable to directly disprove my math, using the laws of physics is proof-positive you cannot do so. So instead you give us some laughably false "assumption" which you use in place of actual physical laws.

Now, take my calcs; premised on the following facts:
1) The total mass of the earth, and thus its total gravitational field,remain constant. All that changes is the distribution of that mass.
2) The changes in local gravity will be determined by

• the "extra" gravity due to pangeas additional crustal thickness
• the "lost" gravity, due to movement of the core away from pangea
• the "added" pangea gravity due to the backflow of mantle into the space taken up by the core
• the "lost" gravity from the mantle that was displaced by the core

You've shown no such thing. Instead, you've made a series of unfounded and scientifically illiterate assumptions, and used them to replace the laws of physics which so readily demonstrate you are wrong.

So I reiterate my challenge - show how my calculation is wrong. Show it - using math - to be inconsistent with any law of physics. Show the math itself to be erroneous - errors in derivation, formulation or solving. Or provide an example of known grivtational shifts in which my math does not work.

After all, I was able to disprove your math using all three methods. Certantly you can disprove mine with one.

But, as I said at the beginning, this was exactly the pseudoscientific BS answer I was expecting - repetition of things you said before, a complete failure to address the math and laws of physics which show you to be wrong, and "disproofs" based on personal beliefs (assumptions in your words) rather than hard-and-fast scientific principals.

Bryan

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.

And it is still wrong. Being clear about a wrong concept doesn't make you right - it makes you clearly wrong.

I did the math, using the universal law of gravitation, that the only way your formula provides the shifts you claim it does is if you shift the entire mass of the earth.

You were unable to refute that - in fact, you cut that direct disproof of your formula from your reply. And you've steadfastly ignore the two scientific papers I provided that directly disproved your hypothesis.

So, in summary, you're argument in favour of your hypothesis is to ignore data.

[sarcasm] very sciency of you[/sarcasm]

100% wrong. we are talking about the effects of shifting a portion of the earths mass on the gravity felt at a specific point. Moving half the earths mass is exactly the same - only simplified as we do not have to worry about movement of other portions of the earth.

And the results of those calcs are clear - your math is wrong.

I was keeping things simple, since you seem to have difficulty following the math we've used already - i.e. not understanding how a ratio is not a delta. But, for the sake of accuracy, lets re-do it, using the proper COM for a hemisphere; which, BTW, is 3/8ths the radius of the sphere for a uniform object. In the case of a split earth it'll be larger (back-of-the-napkin approximation gives me ~2/3rds), due to the denser core, but for simplicity we'll use 3/8ths:

Fg = 1/(3/8)^2 + 1/4^2
Fg = 0.141 + 0.0625
Fg = 0.2035

Your calc:
1^2/4^2 = 1/16 = 0.0625

You're math is still wrong. The only way your math provides the correct shift is to move the entirety of the earth.

You cannot do that - the cores are not closed systems, and therefore you cannot ignore the outside environment. The very force applied to the cores comes from the remainder of the earth; no "rest of earth" = no forces = no movements of the core. This is basic mechanics - you cannot treat an open system as a closed one.

That is no different that what I was saying previously. But what you consistently get wrong is where the force that moves the cores comes from, its magnitude, and what happens to it as the core moves. I assume you're errors come from a lack of understanding of newtons 3rd law and the conservation of momentum - that is all you need to see you are wrong.

Lets make it simple, lets first define terms:
COM = center of the earths mass
COR = center of the earths rotation

1) The force on the core is solely a product of the uneven distribution of mass due to pangea. Pangea's additional mass moves the COM towards pangea, and away from the COR. This now creates a force, as the COM is no longer at the same position as the COR.

I.E. COM != COR.

2) This precessionary force is outwards - i.e. as viewed from the COR, the moment of this force will be towards pangea..

3) The magnitude of the presessionary force (specifically, its moment) is proportional to the separation COR is separated from COM. The larger the separation, the larger the force (moment).

I.E. F is proportional to COR-COM

4) Since the mantle is an incompressible fluid, this force will be passed onto the solid core (ignoring viscosity). This force will push the core away from pangea, as dictated by by newtons 3rd law (equal and opposite reaction).

I.E. F(pangea) = -F(core)

5) As the core moves away from the pangea, the earths COM also moves away from pangea. Therefore the separation of COM and COR decreases

I.E. [COM-COR]t=0 > [COM-COR]t>0

6) At some point the core will move sufficiently such that COM = COR. At this point COM-COR is zero. Since F is proportional to COM-COR, F is now zero.

At this point the core no longer moves; equilibrium has been re-established.

You cannot have a larger shift than that - it defies both newtons 3rd law, and the law of conservation of momentum.

Anyways, I've clipped much of the rest you wrote, as you're simply repeating the same mistake again and again. You've invented some magical force that simply does not exist.

You love shooting yourself in the foot - don't you. You're treating the core as if it were in a vacuum and gravity was the only force present. Problem is, the core is suspended in a fluid, so we're talking about fluid dynamics - AKA a major part of my ol' PhD thesis. What we have here is the movement of an incompressible fluid around a solid object; gravity is not a factor here as the particles making up an incompressible fluid don't experience a net gravitational force - the force of gravity is exactly equaled in a fluid by the buoyancy of the fluid itself (otherwise, fluids would compress).

So you're assumption #1 is fatally flawed - the mantle will flow as a fluid would; not as a particulate solids in a vacuum.

Secondly, when a solid object moves through a fluid, the fluid around it stays stationary (ignoring the effects of viscosity), and thus it is only the displaced fluid that flows. So what you will end up with, when the core moves, is a movement of the mantle in front of the core to behind the core. If the core remains in the lower mantle, then that is the mantle that will flow. If it goes above that depth, then lower-density upper mantle will be what flows.

Because the mantle is viscous (i.e. not a perfect fluid) there will be some flow of the surrounding material - generally speaking this will result in draw-down of the upper mantle on the pangea side, and upwelling of denser mantle on the antipodal side. Since the mantle is constrained, this will have the effect of pushing additional upper mantle from the antipodal side to the pangea side.

Only in a world free of fluid dynamics would this be the case. But hey, 100 pages of my PhD thesis were only on particles movements in fluids - so what would I know?

BTW, a primer for you:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KbzBnE6...ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ

==================================================

So long story short:
1) You are still completely unable to refute my math, other than by your same old trick of sticking your fingers in your ears and repetitively screaming "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" whilst rocking back and forth.

You remind me of these guys:


Anyways:

1) If you had legitimate, mathematic/scientific proof that I was wrong, you'd have shown it to us by this point. Ergo, the only logical conclusion for us at this junction is you cannot disprove the math.

2) Your "hypothesis" requires that we ignore newtons 3rd law, ignore the law of conservation of momentum, and ignore fluid dynamics in general. I.E. it requires that we ignore science. That makes you "hypothesis" a clear-cut case of pseudoscience.

If it were legit, you'd be able to show us mathematically how you are not defying ma = -ma and F = d/dt(mv).

Show us the math - show us how your little forumla is something more than the ratio of force when a single object is moved relative to the observer. Show us how you can move the core past the equilibrium point without violating the law of conservation of momentum. Show us where the force to move the core comes from without violating newtons 3rd law.

Don't worry, my expectations for you are low. I'm ready for another round of "you're wrongs" combined with more scientifically illiterate ramblings.

Bryan

ImagingGeek,
I’m not sure if you are intentionally using evasive tactics to obfuscate the basic issue we are trying to resolve:

Whether a reduction in surface gravity is possible given the consolidation of land masses that formed Pangea and to what extent that surface gravity changed.

Again, your two-hemisphere example using homogenous hemispheres of constant density (i.e., no central, very dense core material or material of variable density with depth) makes your calculations of no value. I won’t be diverted from the issue I specified above.

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.

“You love shooting yourself in the foot - don't you.” Seems like you are good at that. The only way what you stated could happen is if the COR moved. It is very obvious that if that happened the Earth would have been in an even more unbalanced state....not only Pangea but a big chunk of earth would be causing the imbalance.

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. 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,
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.

Therefore, this flow-around concept:
“the mantle will flow as a fluid would”
which works in a laboratory experiment in which the above 3 forces are absent negates your fluid mechanics explanation.

Again you are, IMO, using a lot of faulty, extraneous, erroneous information to try to distract viewers from the realization that you are wrong. It is you who has misread Newton, starting with the ‘r’ in his simple equation on gravity.

Your assumption that the center of rotation (COR) moves as the center of mass (COM) moves proves that your knowledge of physics needs improvement. Your comparing a laboratory style experiment in fluid mechanics to the inner/outer core dynamics only reenforces this. And, your constant whining about your calculations, which don’t apply here because of your assumptions, not being taken seriously is getting tiresome. 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.

Laze

Didn't realize you had replied. My apologies for the lateness of my response.


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.



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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

ImagingGeek,

You are still showing a lack of understanding of physics, you wrote:

“When pangea forms the COM moves away from the COR; it moves towards pangea, as pangea has more mass that(sic) the oceanic crust on the antiopde(sic). So COR != COM in this situation. This creates a precession, and thus a force.”

Not quite:
As Pangea forms, in increments, there is a corresponding tiny incremental movement of COM toward Pangea. However, it is not this tiny shift in COM that produces the force you mention. What produces this force is the wobble resulting from the imbalance of the moment of inertia due to the mass difference between Pangea and its antipode. It is not the mass shift alone; mass, angular velocity and radius (of shifted mass) come into play.

If the Earth did not spin and this formation of Pangea occurred, the mass imbalance would be too insignificant....i.e., no wobble and no core shifting.

I know that you will comment with something like “ That’s the same thing I wrote only you wrote it a little different.” Sorry, I’m not buying that.

You then wrote:
“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.”

Yes, although I would call it a “wobble” force instead of “precessionary.”

You then wrote:
“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.”

Let me rewrite this with a little more accuracy:
So when Pangea forms, COM incrementally moves toward Pangea in extremely tiny amounts, and thus away from the COR. When the core(s) move, which occurs at the same time Pangea is consolidating, they move away from Pangea at a much higher rate (of distance) than the tiny movement of COM towards Pangea due to its consolidation. Since the core(s) movement is much, much greater than the tiny shift in COM due to the consolidation of Pangea, the net effect is that the Earth’s COM moves away from the COR away from Pangea.

Finally, you wrote:
“When the position of the COM = the position of the COR there will be no further processionary(sic) force, and thus no more movement of the core.”

Totally wrong. If you read the statements above, the Earth’s COM is always moving, starting at the COR and away from the COR, away from Pangea because of the great disparity between the tiny shift in COM toward Pangea due to its consolidation and the greater core(s) shift in the opposite direction due to the reaction force from the wobble.

The scenario would be.....a continent moves toward Pangea (with a tiny shift in COM toward Pangea)........an imbalance in moment of inertia occurs causing the Earth to wobble.....the action-reaction force pushes the core(s) away from the COR away from Pangea. Obviously, this was a multi-million year process.

I don’t want to comment on your other statements at this time because the above issue is the crux of our commentary.

Laze

Laze, you keep repeating yourself, and making the same errors. To say this is getting boring is an understatement.

To be blunt, you are wrong. To quickly address your new errors:

Gyroscopic procession - i.e. what happens to your earth due to the imbalance created by pangea - is determined solely by the speed of the planets rotation and the distance separating the COM from the COR. So the rate any disparity between the position of the COM and COR forms is irrelevant - the final precessionary force produced is independent of the rate that disparity forms.

Anyways, since day one I've been trying to force you to deal with two gaping holes in your hypothesis - holes you ignore by brining up additional irrelevant falsehoods like the claims you made in your last post. If you're willing to address these issues this discussion will continue. If you're going to ignore them for the [sarcasm]2x106 time[/sarcasm] than, AFAIC, this thread is dead:

1) Your hypothesis has been directly refuted by at least two separate scientific studies, using two vastly different methodologies to measure paleogravity at different locals on the earth. How do you account for this data that directly disproves your hypothesis?

The citations:
McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.p

2) Your "formula" of d^2/r^2 only calculates gravitational shifts when the entire mass of the earth is moved, relative to the observer. I showed the mathematical proof of this earlier in the thread, and derived a proper formula for calculating the magnitude of these shifts. My formula gives gravitational shifts a magnitude of order smaller than the ones your gives. Given this data, please explain:
a) Derive your formula such that it accounts for more than movements of the entire earth, relative to a stationary observer, or
b) Show that the derivation of my formula is incorrect based on accepted physical principals (i.e. math, not name-calling and whining)

The above is how real scientific conversations occur. You can either join me in such a conversation, or you can join the ranks of the other psudoscienitifc kooks on this board.

Bryan

ImagingGeek,

I knew it! Yes, I knew that you would threaten ending the discussion when you realized you were wrong.

In my prior post, I proved that you were solving the wrong problem. You were solving the problem as though the Earth was not spinning. You were trying to offset the center of mass shift due to the formation of Pangea (which is tiny) with the core(s) shift. This would apply if the Earth were static (i.e., not spinning). You apparently didn’t know the difference between static mass and rotational mass (i.e., moment of inertia).

Having realized your blunder, you then introduced double-talk in which you mention the rotation of the Earth:
“......what happens to your earth due to the imbalance created by pangea - is determined solely by the speed of the planets rotation.........”

Yes, now you introduce the rotation of the Earth’s after I explained that to you. Go back and read your prior description, which is applicable only to a static Earth.

You then state:
“Anyways, since day one I've been trying to force you to deal with two gaping holes in your hypothesis - holes you ignore by brining up additional irrelevant falsehoods like the claims you made in your last post.”
Of course, you don’t list what those “falsehoods” are. What are they? What are the "two gaping holes"?

You then apply your diversionary tactics by stating that you have cited 2 references that disprove the Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction. One relates to Earth expansion, something totally irrelevant to what we are addressing and the other is a link that, when trying to access, gives the message:

“ERROR: The document you are looking for could not be found”

You then return to your diversionary tactics, instead of explaining the “falsehoods” of my prior post. I’m not falling for that. You know what they say: “If it's too hot in the kitchen......”

I’d have more respect for you if you would admit you made an error in the basic concepts being discussed (i.e., that the surface gravitational change was significant) and then we could go on to address the magnitude of that change. Will you admit that or are you ready to bail out?

Laze

You did no such thing, and this statement is proof positive you have no understanding of the physical principals we are talking about. Precession can only occur with rotating bodies. Ergo, every single time I used the terms "procession", "processionary force", etc, I was directly and specifically describing a rotating system.

Likewise, every single time I used the term "center of rotation" (i.e. COR), I was directly and specifically describing a rotating system.

The fact you have to stoop to these lies to make your point is pretty clear evidence of both your dishonesty, as well as your unfamiliarity of basic scientific principals and terminology.


LOL, ignoring the papers instead of dealing with it. The first of those papers directly measured paleogravity at several sites on the earth. Had your little magical gravitational change happened they would have observed it. Instead they found that the force of gravity remained constant, throughout the earths history, at the sites they tested. Given that they tested site which were part of pangea, that's a pretty big hole in your hypothesis.

The second link works fine in all but one of my posts, where part of the file extention got clipped. Maybe you should have tried one of the other 4-5 times I posted it (but thanx for confirming you never bothered trying to read it until yesterday):
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

As with the first paper, this one directly measures paleogravity, but this time using a different methodology (tidal deposits), in an area which was part of pangea. No measurable changes in gravitational force were observed, despite the fact that 100MYA-65MYA was extensively covered in their data set.

Keep in mind, you're claiming a 54% shift in gravity; both of these studies don't see that despite having a sensitivity ~10X better than what you're expecting them to find.

And you still have not dealt with the fact that your formula does not calculate what you claim it does.

Bryan