Thunderbolts Forum

'13-11-25, 19:07 Aardwolf	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: I don't know. I'm not a geologist. However it is clear the the proportion of rock species differs from strata to strata. The proportion of iron to silica isn't the same in every condition. Lead is heavier however. And you mentioned density in that silica in a liquid state is heavier... To which I offered a counter view point: that lead would remain denser regardless of state as its atomic structure is denser. Liquid silicon is not denser than lead. But if density doesn't matter then why did you mention it? I'm trying to figure out your point of view. I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Silicon is denser in it's liquid state than it is in it's solid state, so under compression it will be liquid. viscount aero wrote: Please correct me if I am assuming incorrectly, but you seem to believe that a material's density would bear no relevance in the condition at the Earth's core. I say the opposite. I say that it doesn't matter if nine million different kinds of metals and rock exist in the crust--all would not appear in relative proportion in the core. The core would be different and probably much more homogenous than the crust due to the extreme conditions in the Earth's center. On the way down to the core certain things would simply not exist. If density is important then denser materials will not preside at the gravity free centre.
'13-11-25, 19:09 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: I don't know. I'm not a geologist. However it is clear the the proportion of rock species differs from strata to strata. The proportion of iron to silica isn't the same in every condition. Lead is heavier however. And you mentioned density in that silica in a liquid state is heavier... To which I offered a counter view point: that lead would remain denser regardless of state as its atomic structure is denser. Liquid silicon is not denser than lead. But if density doesn't matter then why did you mention it? I'm trying to figure out your point of view. I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Silicon is denser in it's liquid state than it is in it's solid state, so under compression it will be liquid. viscount aero wrote: Please correct me if I am assuming incorrectly, but you seem to believe that a material's density would bear no relevance in the condition at the Earth's core. I say the opposite. I say that it doesn't matter if nine million different kinds of metals and rock exist in the crust--all would not appear in relative proportion in the core. The core would be different and probably much more homogenous than the crust due to the extreme conditions in the Earth's center. On the way down to the core certain things would simply not exist. If density is important then denser materials will not preside at the gravity free centre. Ok but lead (and iron) is denser than silica. And again the zero-g center is theoretical, probably a "point" only.
'13-11-25, 19:24 Aardwolf	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: Aardwolf wrote: 1) Firstly, why would denser materials be attracted to the gravity free center. The centrifugal force near the center would easily overcome non-existent gravity. 2) Secondly, the atmosphere doesn't order itself according to atomic weight so why do you think the core does? And if it does, why do we find the crust so thoroughly mixed and with heavy metals? Good questions. On the way down to the core there is indeed gravity. The theoretical zero g center is only a very small region, a theoretical dimensionless point. About atomic weight, again, heavy things sink. It is at least my opinion that on the way down to sinking that everything would initially go down. As some things sank, some material would then get left behind, with only the very few heaviest things continuing on the way down. Perhaps I'm wrong but we will probably never know what is actually inside the Earth. It's virtually impossible to know. But it's mind-bending to try to figure it out You'r still omiting the effect of centrifugal force. It doesn't matter how large the zero gravity area, the point is that there is a large area of very low gravity. At some point the gravity will be equal to the centrifugal force so the iron should migrate to that point leaving less dense material in the centre. I concede there could be a slim shell of iron, but not a core. More likely IMO is that it is as readily mixed as the crust and atmosphere (ie electromagnetically, not by atomic weight).
'13-11-25, 19:50 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity You're right that gravity doesn't increase all of the way to the core — in the Earth, it increases down to roughly the middle of the mantle, and then it decreases down to nothing at the very center. So the settling of heavier elements "should be" most pronounced in the top half, and less pronounced, or even insignificant, in the bottom half. Just remember that as the gravity diminishes with proximity to the core, so does the centrifugal force, which varies with the radius. So it isn't going to be light elements in the core, and heavy elements at the surface, due to centrifugal separation. At the rotation rate of the Earth, gravity is always the more powerful force. If something was stirring or pumping the liquid at any of these levels (such as electrostatic discharges, which might prefer one element over another), that might be a far bigger factor than simple mass separation due to gravity. As concerns the geomagnetic field, if it's caused by ferromagnetism (which I don't think it is), the core would have to be iron, nickel, cobalt, etc. But if the field is caused by rotating charged particles, the elements could be anything, since all elements can get ionized under sufficient pressure. Bottom line: I'm no help on this one. If we could accurately estimate the overall density of the Earth, we could set limits on how much of the heavy elements versus light elements were present, knowing that somehow, it all has to average out to the estimated density. But then again, how to estimate density is the central topic of this thread.
'13-11-25, 19:57 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity CharlesChandler wrote: You're right that gravity doesn't increase all of the way to the core — in the Earth, it increases down to roughly the middle of the mantle, and then it decreases down to nothing at the very center. So the settling of heavier elements "should be" most pronounced in the top half, and less pronounced, or even insignificant, in the bottom half. Just remember that as the gravity diminishes with proximity to the core, so does the centrifugal force, which varies with the radius. So it isn't going to be light elements in the core, and heavy elements at the surface, due to centrifugal separation. At the rotation rate of the Earth, gravity is always the more powerful force. If something was stirring or pumping the liquid at any of these levels (such as electrostatic discharges, which might prefer one element over another), that might be a far bigger factor than simple mass separation due to gravity. As concerns the geomagnetic field, if it's caused by ferromagnetism (which I don't think it is), the core would have to be iron, nickel, cobalt, etc. But if the field is caused by rotating charged particles, the elements could be anything, since all elements can get ionized under sufficient pressure. Bottom line: I'm no help on this one. If we could accurately estimate the overall density of the Earth, we could set limits on how much of the heavy elements versus light elements were present, knowing that somehow, it all has to average out to the estimated density. But then again, how to estimate density is the central topic of this thread. Your post confused me more than organized me "So it isn't going to be light elements in the core, and heavy elements at the surface, due to centrifugal separation" (?) So you also agree that the core will be heavier? Or you don't know?
'13-11-25, 20:01 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: Aardwolf wrote: 1) Firstly, why would denser materials be attracted to the gravity free center. The centrifugal force near the center would easily overcome non-existent gravity. 2) Secondly, the atmosphere doesn't order itself according to atomic weight so why do you think the core does? And if it does, why do we find the crust so thoroughly mixed and with heavy metals? Good questions. On the way down to the core there is indeed gravity. The theoretical zero g center is only a very small region, a theoretical dimensionless point. About atomic weight, again, heavy things sink. It is at least my opinion that on the way down to sinking that everything would initially go down. As some things sank, some material would then get left behind, with only the very few heaviest things continuing on the way down. Perhaps I'm wrong but we will probably never know what is actually inside the Earth. It's virtually impossible to know. But it's mind-bending to try to figure it out You'r still omiting the effect of centrifugal force. It doesn't matter how large the zero gravity area, the point is that there is a large area of very low gravity. At some point the gravity will be equal to the centrifugal force so the iron should migrate to that point leaving less dense material in the centre. I concede there could be a slim shell of iron, but not a core. More likely IMO is that it is as readily mixed as the crust and atmosphere (ie electromagnetically, not by atomic weight). Ok I do understand that. So according to Charles the whole issue of internal crushing (gravitic) pressure becomes irrelevant the farther down you go... things get "lighter." What about internal pressure due to heat? I'm getting off the iron core idea for a bit to explore this new information. Under such a confinement, wouldn't there be an incredible tendency for the core to want to expand out of the center due to thermodynamic pressure?
'13-11-25, 21:28 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Thinking this through more--I'm wondering how planets can be both gravitational objects, of mass, and apparently non-gravitic objects whose middles and centers are of lesser gravity to zero gravity? Isn't this a contradiction? How can a planet form a core if it cannot? How can a planet form at all if its center is at zero g? It must not form due to mechanical processes, then. In the mechanical planetary formation model gravity plays a central role in compacting the body into a sphere. If the center is zero-g then gravity cannot even begin acting upon the matter to compact it unless at some point a "critical mass" is reached and the outer layers build and build up, like a tree ring system, whereby the center becomes "hollowed out" and of "zero g". This is hard to visualize. In the EU model, to my knowledge, the crust of a planet is just a cooled leftover "slag" remnant of the molten/plasma interior. The planet is molten all the way down to the core. Whereas a star is plasma from surface to center. Yet I've read, too, that some believe the star to be "solid" just beneath the photosphere. I don't really believe that. For example, nebulae are not solid. They are gigantic aethereal plasma regions. Why would a star, which is a spherical plasma structure, be solid whereas a nebulae isn't?
'13-11-25, 21:39 meemoe_uk	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity >So according to Charles the whole issue of internal crushing (gravitic) pressure becomes irrelevant the farther down you go... things get "lighter." Yes but why use an EU thread on alternative theory to discuss the conventional gravity model on the structure of planets? Charles is right, we simply don't know the density of the Earth or any other moon or planet in the solar system. Convention uses the gravity model and its assumptions to guess density. Don't forget, its just a guess. Given all the cracks in conventional gravity theory, its certainly worth looking at electric forces as an alternative as to why planets form and persist. But as soon as electric forces are considered, the old model of the Earth has to be completely chucked out. Since electric force can be attractive and repulsive, inversion of force is plausible at some internal radius, i.e. stuff gets pulled up just as much as stuff on the surface gets pulled down. This further allows the possibility of a hollow Earth. I've read some geologists have come to this conclusion independently of any EU theory, but anyone allied to gravity theory would dismiss it out of hand. Interestingly, when the moon experiences a moonquake, they are less intense but last much longer than Earthquakes. Probably because the moon has much less liquid in its core and is reverberating like a bell - a hollow object that cannot dissipate its energy quickly into a soft mantle. Until we get into the core, or at least the mantle of an object, we are left guessing. With the Earth we've only got about 12km down. That's pretty pathetic, but even there the findings were contrary to gravity conventional theory. Lots of water, lots of hydrogen gas, and the sesmic studies defied theory.
'13-11-25, 21:48 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: >So according to Charles the whole issue of internal crushing (gravitic) pressure becomes irrelevant the farther down you go... things get "lighter." Yes but why use an EU thread on alternative theory to discuss the conventional gravity model on the structure of planets? Well why not. Comparison and contrast of theory is relevant to the talk. Gravity is not an off-limits topic. It is real and has real influence--whatever it is. meemoe_uk wrote: Charles is right, we simply don't know the density of the Earth or any other moon or planet in the solar system. Convention uses the gravity model and its assumptions to guess density. Don't forget, its just a guess. Given all the cracks in conventional gravity theory, its certainly worth looking at electric forces as an alternative as to why planets form and persist. But as soon as electric forces are considered, the old model of the Earth has to be completely chucked out. Since electric force can be attractive and repulsive, inversion of force is plausible at some internal radius, i.e. stuff gets pulled up just as much as stuff on the surface gets pulled down. This further allows the possibility of a hollow Earth. I've read some geologists have come to this conclusion independently of any EU theory, but anyone allied to gravity theory would dismiss it out of hand. Interestingly, when the moon experiences a moonquake, they are less intense but last much longer than Earthquakes. Probably because the moon has much less liquid in its core and is reverberating like a bell - a hollow object that cannot dissipate its energy quickly into a soft mantle. Until we get into the core, or at least the mantle of an object, we are left guessing. With the Earth we've only got about 12km down. That's pretty pathetic, but even there the findings were contrary to gravity conventional theory. Lots of water, lots of hydrogen gas, and the sesmic studies defied theory. Yes I've been a proponent of hollow planets for years now. I believe at least some planets are geodes. The Moon and Mercury are, to me, the same things and are probably just giant geodes in space. Mercury somehow ended up near the Sun and the Moon hung around our Earth.
'13-11-25, 22:02 meemoe_uk	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity In the EU model, to my knowledge, the crust of a planet is just a cooled leftover "slag" remnant of the molten/plasma interior. The planet is molten all the way down to the core. Whereas a star is plasma from surface to center. Well thats just like the conventional model. I wish thunderbolts would put up a stellar and planet model on the website, all we've got is the essential guide for plasma and electricity in free space. Poor show if after around 100 years of EU theory starting with Birkeland we haven't agreed on any basic model on the sun and Earth. Anyone can say 'haha your wrong' when a star does something odd, but while the youtube vids on conventional science scratching there heads at every observation are fun we should really have a EU page for a solar + planets model offering a simple explanation to point to every time. Maybe there's a war going on with every top EU person having their own stellar model so any one theory endorsed by thunderbolts will have to snub 10 others.
'13-11-25, 22:09 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: In the EU model, to my knowledge, the crust of a planet is just a cooled leftover "slag" remnant of the molten/plasma interior. The planet is molten all the way down to the core. Whereas a star is plasma from surface to center. Well thats just like the conventional model. I wish thunderbolts would put up a stellar and planet model on the website, all we've got is the essential guide for plasma and electricity in free space. Poor show if after around 100 years of EU theory starting with Birkeland we haven't agreed on any basic model on the sun and Earth. Anyone can say 'haha your wrong' when a star does something odd, but while the youtube vids on conventional science scratching there heads at every observation are fun we should really have a EU page for a solar + planets model offering a simple explanation to point to every time. Maybe there's a war going on with every top EU person having their own stellar model so any one theory endorsed by thunderbolts will have to snub 10 others. I agree. To my knowledge the only model for planets is that they simply fission off a star, like an amoeba, and become another body, either a star or a "gas giant." But insofar as a detailed model of the process I don't think there is one.
'13-11-25, 22:16 Ozelo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: Thinking this through more--I'm wondering how planets can be both gravitational objects, of mass, and apparently non-gravitic objects whose middles and centers are of lesser gravity to zero gravity? Isn't this a contradiction? How can a planet form a core if it cannot? How can a planet form at all if its center is at zero g? It must not form due to mechanical processes, then. In the mechanical planetary formation model gravity plays a central role in compacting the body into a sphere. If the center is zero-g then gravity cannot even begin acting upon the matter to compact it unless at some point a "critical mass" is reached and the outer layers build and build up, like a tree ring system, whereby the center becomes "hollowed out" and of "zero g". This is hard to visualize. In the EU model, to my knowledge, the crust of a planet is just a cooled leftover "slag" remnant of the molten/plasma interior. The planet is molten all the way down to the core. Whereas a star is plasma from surface to center. Yet I've read, too, that some believe the star to be "solid" just beneath the photosphere. I don't really believe that. For example, nebulae are not solid. They are gigantic aethereal plasma regions. Could it be that the Earth magnetic field causes that hollow core to rotate? I mean, remember that little motor you can see all around the web where it generally uses a magnet stuck in a battery bottom and a thin wire rotates around it? For some reason, once I read what you said, I thought the Earth like that battery/magnet. But instead, consider the battery and magnet rotating while the wire is at rest. Well, in this case I think heavier planets wouldn't be able to become denser (or hotter) due to its distance "from the stellar wire at rest" connected to the sun. In the other hand, lighter planets wouldn't hold a thick atmosphere although they seems to be more solid, there should be a very small or no magnetic field at all, attached to it. Are there planets with almost no magnetic field? If yes, are there any weird difference on its rotation when compared (related) to planets with huge magnetic fields? Sorry if this idea sounds crazy, perhaps this does not make sense at all. Specially if you consider that there are planets that rotates to the opposite direction (ac motors?) when compared to Earth. Interesting thoughts there.
'13-11-25, 22:22 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Ozelo wrote: viscount aero wrote: Thinking this through more--I'm wondering how planets can be both gravitational objects, of mass, and apparently non-gravitic objects whose middles and centers are of lesser gravity to zero gravity? Isn't this a contradiction? How can a planet form a core if it cannot? How can a planet form at all if its center is at zero g? It must not form due to mechanical processes, then. In the mechanical planetary formation model gravity plays a central role in compacting the body into a sphere. If the center is zero-g then gravity cannot even begin acting upon the matter to compact it unless at some point a "critical mass" is reached and the outer layers build and build up, like a tree ring system, whereby the center becomes "hollowed out" and of "zero g". This is hard to visualize. In the EU model, to my knowledge, the crust of a planet is just a cooled leftover "slag" remnant of the molten/plasma interior. The planet is molten all the way down to the core. Whereas a star is plasma from surface to center. Yet I've read, too, that some believe the star to be "solid" just beneath the photosphere. I don't really believe that. For example, nebulae are not solid. They are gigantic aethereal plasma regions. Could it be that the Earth magnetic field causes that hollow core to rotate? I mean, remember that little motor you can see all around the web where it generally uses a magnet stuck in a battery bottom and a thin wire rotates around it? For some reason, once I read what you said, I thought the Earth like that battery/magnet. But instead, consider the battery and magnet rotating while the wire is at rest. Well, in this case I think heavier planets wouldn't be able to become denser (or hotter) due to its distance "from the stellar wire at rest" connected to the sun. In the other hand, lighter planets wouldn't hold a thick atmosphere although they seems to be more solid, there should be a very small or no magnetic field at all, attached to it. Are there planets with almost no magnetic field? If yes, are there any weird difference on its rotation when compared (related) to planets with huge magnetic fields? Sorry if this idea sounds crazy, perhaps this does not make sense at all. Specially if you consider that there are planets that rotates to the opposite direction (ac motors?) when compared to Earth. Interesting thoughts there. What motor with a wire? What?
'13-11-25, 22:29 Ozelo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: Ozelo wrote: viscount aero wrote: Thinking this through...gigantic aethereal plasma regions. Could it be that the Earth magnetic field...to Earth. Interesting thoughts there. What motor with a wire? What? Such as this, but consider the wire at rest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOdboRYf1hM *edit* A even better example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCYiexKCYW0 *edit*
'13-11-25, 23:17 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Ozelo wrote: viscount aero wrote: Ozelo wrote: viscount aero wrote: Thinking this through...gigantic aethereal plasma regions. Could it be that the Earth magnetic field...to Earth. Interesting thoughts there. What motor with a wire? What? Such as this, but consider the wire at rest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOdboRYf1hM *edit* A even better example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCYiexKCYW0 *edit* Oh you should have said "homopolar motor" from the beginning. That is the EU theory for galaxies.