• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Why is the Earth Round?

arg-fallbackName="australopithecus"/>
Shit or get off the pot, Stripe. Either provide comprehensive explanation WITH EVIDENCE for whatever-the-fuck it is you're trying to assert, or stop wasting our time and go back under your bridge.
 
arg-fallbackName="CosmicJoghurt"/>
Stripe said:
Nasher's analysis is wrong.

Movement of mass will occur along lines of least resistance to the area excavated through the center of the Earth (or Moon) from the antipodean point. And pressure is greatest at the core. Thus more friction and heat will be generated at the core than anywhere else.
Click to expand...


How about providing some evidence to support your claim instead of simply saying Nash is wrong, and telling the same story again?
 
arg-fallbackName="Master_Ghost_Knight"/>
Stripe said:
How big the hole has to be before this would happen and how big the hole would have to be to generate the heat flux we see are very good questions.
Click to expand...
One which you can't answer I might add.
Stripe said:
Like you say they aren't very easy questions to answer, but with the assumption of this process as the cause of geothermal heat we could constrain the age and magnitude of the event.
Click to expand...
Yes we could calculate the age of the event given a magnitude, or calculate the magnitude given the age of the event. I don't think you can calculate both by this methods, however you can estimate the magnitude of the event and age by other methods. This however is beyound the point, the point is, "we could", but not you, because the mathematics of it all is clearly beyound your grasp, meaning that this is merely an exercise in futility and you could never fulfill the requierments of evidence that we are asking from you. Capiche?
 
arg-fallbackName="nasher168"/>
I'll post this again. You seem to have missed it.
I said:
This is closer to what would actually happen:

moreaccuratepic.jpg



This is not to say no heating at all would occur at the core. But there would not be much compared with that near the surface.

The path of least resistance is not through the centre. As you said yourself, it is high-pressure. It therefore takes more force to push through it. It would be far easier for the mantle surrounding the hole to fill the gap, then for mantle on the other side to flow into the new low-pressure regions of the mantle.

AND the material trying to move through is lighter than the core, so would "float" around the edge rather than press through to the other side.

AND the core doesn't want to go anywhere. It will always try to keep at the centre.
Click to expand...
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
Stripe, to save us all a heck of a lot of stress, why don't you try writing a moderately long post for once addressing the following points succinctly:

- What it is exactly that you are proposing, a coherent step by step account of what you think happened
- Evidence that you believe supports this proposal
- Why you think this is a better explanation than the standard geological explanation

You're really not being clear, or coherent and it's getting on everyone's nerves. Why not lay out your points and evidence in one post, then let us ask questions based on that? This topic has been a joke so far...
 
arg-fallbackName="Stripe"/>
Laurens said:
Stripe, to save us all a heck of a lot of stress, why don't you try writing a moderately long post for once addressing the following points succinctly:

- What it is exactly that you are proposing, a coherent step by step account of what you think happened
- Evidence that you believe supports this proposal
- Why you think this is a better explanation than the standard geological explanation

You're really not being clear, or coherent and it's getting on everyone's nerves. Why not lay out your points and evidence in one post, then let us ask questions based on that? This topic has been a joke so far...
Click to expand...
I've got some reading to do. ;)

See you all next time. :cool:
 
arg-fallbackName="Stripe"/>
Laurens said:
Stripe, to save us all a heck of a lot of stress, why don't you try writing a moderately long post for once addressing the following points succinctly:
Click to expand...
People tend not to read long posts.
- What it is exactly that you are proposing, a coherent step by step account of what you think happened
Click to expand...
It's been so long. I think this thread is the one where I said the Earth is round because of gravity and if the Earth were to be rendered significantly non-spherical, gravity would make it round again.
- Evidence that you believe supports this proposal
Click to expand...
Uh... I really struggle when people ask for evidence that the Earth is round and that it is gravity that makes it round. It's like someone asking me why water is wet.
- Why you think this is a better explanation than the standard geological explanation
Click to expand...
I think this is the standard explanation. Though I did manage to go through an Earth Science degree without ever once being told it. :shock:
You're really not being clear, or coherent and it's getting on everyone's nerves.
Click to expand...
Can you tell me exactly what is not clear?
Why not lay out your points and evidence in one post, then let us ask questions based on that? This topic has been a joke so far...
Click to expand...
It's hardly my fault that people choose to react like a vampire to a crucifix in the face of simple facts. :mrgreen:
 
arg-fallbackName="australopithecus"/>
Stripe said:
australopithecus said:
Thought so.
Click to expand...
Did you have a response to my ideas or are you just here to be annoying? :roll:
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should actually present some ideas. Try re-reading your own thread, you've asserted nothing but vagaries then side-stepped answering questions demanding specifics by layering on more vague non-answers, arrogance and a overuse of emoticons. Not just in this thread but in every thread you've posted in.

I see no reason why anyone should engage with you with any seriousness until you actually defend your assertions with something approching objective evidence. That is, I should say, once you actually state what it is you're trying to assert.
 
arg-fallbackName="Stripe"/>
australopithecus said:
Perhaps you should actually present some ideas. Try re-reading your own thread, you've asserted nothing but vagaries then side-stepped answering questions demanding specifics by layering on more vague non-answers, arrogance and a overuse of emoticons. Not just in this thread but in every thread you've posted in.I see no reason why anyone should engage with you with any seriousness until you actually defend your assertions with something approching objective evidence. That is, I should say, once you actually state what it is you're trying to assert.
Click to expand...
Do you know why the Earth is round?
 
arg-fallbackName="australopithecus"/>
No, that's not what I asked. I asked you to firstly describe in detail what it is you are asserting, then to provide evidence for you are claiming. We established within the first few posts why the Earth is round, now it is up to you to explain why this is relevant to whatever it is you're asserting AFTER you've told it is you're trying to assert.

No more ifs, no more buts, no more dancing around the issue, no more side stepping questions with vague comments, no more replying with irrelevant questions.

If you can't do this then tell us now so we can end this nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top