Why is the Earth Round?

[Stripe]

Let's not pretend anything here and stick to the facts. You claim that you have a better model... explain it. Let's hear your "rational idea" straight out, don't pussy-foot around it.
BTW, you can't convince us that evolution is wrong because you don't have any facts at all.

I thought it would be obvious by now. :?

Take a sizeable chunk out of the Earth's crust and gravity will make the interior hot. This is an event that, if studied, could be constrained in time and significantly shorten up the history of the planet.

 

[australopithecus]

Take a sizeable chunk out of the Earth's crust and gravity will make the interior hot. This is an event that, if studied, could be constrained in time and significantly shorten up the history of the planet.

Explain how removing a chunk of the Earth's crust will heat the core. With evidence and facts please. Demonstrably and preferably peer reviewed.

 

[Dean]

Let's not pretend anything here and stick to the facts. You claim that you have a better model... explain it. Let's hear your "rational idea" straight out, don't pussy-foot around it.
BTW, you can't convince us that evolution is wrong because you don't have any facts at all.

I thought it would be obvious by now. :?

Take a sizeable chunk out of the Earth's crust and gravity will make the interior hot. This is an event that, if studied, could be constrained in time and significantly shorten up the history of the planet.

Please don't tell me you think that the crust heats the core of the earth, rather than the other way around.

The evidence diametrically contradicts this statement, so I would be interested to see what facts, and citations you can bring to bear in support of this rather bold claim. I have no idea what that will include, but I can take a guess.

 

[Inferno]

Let's not pretend anything here and stick to the facts. You claim that you have a better model... explain it. Let's hear your "rational idea" straight out, don't pussy-foot around it.
BTW, you can't convince us that evolution is wrong because you don't have any facts at all.

I thought it would be obvious by now. :?

Take a sizeable chunk out of the Earth's crust and gravity will make the interior hot. This is an event that, if studied, could be constrained in time and significantly shorten up the history of the planet.

Epic fail. First of all, how is this matter removed? If it is teleported, as you say, this would happen:

nasher168[/url]"]Well, the vacuum left by the sudden, enormous gap would probably suck in atmosphere from around the remainder of the planet to equalise the pressure. So highly-destructive winds across the planet might be the immediate effect, followed very shortly afterwards by the Earth's mantle filling the gap. Catastrophic seismic activity across the globe, rearrangement of the tectonic plates, tsunamis...
Okay, all of that was just speculation. But whatever the case, we'd be fucked.

Second, when should this have happened? It would take the earth hundreds of millions of years to cool down again. It would now also have lost a huge chunk of potential energy. Where did life come from then? And where did the matter go?

Your idea is so full of holes, it's difficult to find any ground to stand on.

 

[Laurens]

Stripe, it seems to me that you're acting like a smug smartarse because you think you've found a way to justify your preconceived beliefs about the age of the Earth.

The thing is reality doesn't give a shit how old you want the Earth to be. The Earth is as old at it is, and we have plenty of evidence to suggest that it is billions of years old.

Do you want to have a go at disproving the dozen or so radiometric dating methods which establish the age of certain rocks, and the Earth to within a known margin of error?

Do you want to have a go at refuting the helioseismic dating calculations which corroborate the dates given by radiometric methods?

Do you want to have a go at explaining away the numerous well known and understood geological phenomena which are known to take millions of years?

Or even just answer the questions I asked on the previous page!

The reality is quite straightforward, the Earth is billions of years old. Sitting there and thinking of a way that might make the Earth younger is pointless, and a completely backward way of doing science. Even if the method you've come up with (or more likely have lifted from somewhere else) is accurate and would make the Earth a lot younger had it happened, does not mean it did happen. You're just looking for an excuse so you can say that the Earth is young, the reality is that it is not. That won't change.

Reality won't change just because you really, really want it to. Why not just grow up and accept the facts?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

You realize that removing any matter from the planet would result in a net loss of energy, right?

Also there's that whole wiping out all life and rendering the planet inhospitable thing.

And the fact that we can see that the earth is billions of years old from countless other forms of evidence.

And the fact that there would be an enormous fucking crater left behind. Or a new continent and tectonic plate, I'm not really sure which would happen, but the thing to note would be "new;" younger than all the material laid down around it.

 

[sgrunterundt]

No it is not dificult to produce. Just increase heat and pressure to above the critical point.

You make it sound so easy! :shock:

In this hole both would certainly be higher.

Your pressure would certainly be higher and the temperature too, but in order to create supercritical water you need to keep the water in place. The heat will simply generate a convection current in the water and were the heat great enough the water would simply boil away. In order to generate the pressure you'd need to cap the newly formed ocean.

Yes of course in the top tens of kilometers of water the pressure will be below the critical point, but not below, with the weight of the top layers upon it. We are talking about the entire worlds oceans in a several hundred kilometer deep hole.

The water would definitely not boil "away". Technically the it would not boil at all since it is above the critical pressure, that is the whole point about the critical point, above it heating just makes the water less dense continuously without a sharp transition, just like it happens in undersea eruptions.*

That you think that the water will simply flee the hole as hot steam shows a complete lack of understanding of the scale of gravitation here. At atmospheric composition and temperature pressure doubles with every five kilometers. Water is lighter and the temperature is higher, therefore the doubling height is lower, but still the hole you described has a lot of doublings. This hole doesn't need a cap, gravity is all the cap that is needed. The majority of the earths atmosphere and oceans are going to be found in that hole, and very little above; and it is going to stay that way until the denser rock displaces it.

*Yes supercritical water is common near deep-sea volcanism. (Yes in this case the heat does convect away, but as long as it is kept up there is supercritical water there.)

 

[ImprobableJoe]

But, just quickly, the accretionary model fails mostly because the tension between particle size, accretion rate and radioactive residue cannot be married up in a contiguous physical model. Basically - if the starting material is too fine it won't coalesce. If it's too coarse it requires a non-star source. If the accretion rate is too low, heat will not be retained and if it cannot be too fast because of supply rates. Radioactive material needs to be plentiful enough to power the heat of the Earth, but it cannot bring with it material with too short a half life.

And you're educational background is... what? Until you present them, I suggest that you stop posting. I also suggest everyone else stop responding to you.

You're making blanket assertions with no evidence, and really no evidence that you even know what you're posting and what it actually means.

 

[Stripe]

Explain how removing a chunk of the Earth's crust will heat the core. With evidence and facts please. Demonstrably and preferably peer reviewed.

Why is the Earth round?

 

[Stripe]

Please don't tell me you think that the crust heats the core of the earth

Deal!

rather than the other way around.

The question is ... How did the core become heated?

 

[Stripe]

Epic fail. First of all, how is this matter removed?

The most obvious mechanism today would be an asteroid impact, but we have evidence on a grand scale that something much more profound happened.

Second, when should this have happened? It would take the earth hundreds of millions of years to cool down again. It would now also have lost a huge chunk of potential energy. Where did life come from then? And where did the matter go?

Well, no. The Earth isn't cool so the event need not be so long ago. And losing potential energy isn't a problem, is it? Where life came from is a conundrum no matter when the event originally happened. The matter most likely got moved to a different part of the Earth.

[/quote]Your idea is so full of holes, it's difficult to find any ground to stand on.[/quote]
The idea is physically sound and remarkably simple. It will, however, require a radical rethink of the Earth's history. For those not willing to let go of a few established ideas, it may be a step too far.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, it seems to me that you're acting like a smug smartarse because you think you've found a way to justify your preconceived beliefs about the age of the Earth.

The thing is reality doesn't give a shit how old you want the Earth to be. The Earth is as old at it is, and we have plenty of evidence to suggest that it is billions of years old.

Do you want to have a go at disproving the dozen or so radiometric dating methods which establish the age of certain rocks, and the Earth to within a known margin of error?

Do you want to have a go at refuting the helioseismic dating calculations which corroborate the dates given by radiometric methods?

Do you want to have a go at explaining away the numerous well known and understood geological phenomena which are known to take millions of years?

Or even just answer the questions I asked on the previous page!

The reality is quite straightforward, the Earth is billions of years old. Sitting there and thinking of a way that might make the Earth younger is pointless, and a completely backward way of doing science. Even if the method you've come up with (or more likely have lifted from somewhere else) is accurate and would make the Earth a lot younger had it happened, does not mean it did happen. You're just looking for an excuse so you can say that the Earth is young, the reality is that it is not. That won't change.

Reality won't change just because you really, really want it to. Why not just grow up and accept the facts?

Naw, I like considering reasonable explanations that fly in the face of the established ideas.

 

[Stripe]

You realize that removing any matter from the planet would result in a net loss of energy, right?

Yeah. :|

Also there's that whole wiping out all life and rendering the planet inhospitable thing.

Yeah. It'd take some sort of divine intervention for most of the major forms of land dwelling organisms to survive.

And the fact that we can see that the earth is billions of years old from countless other forms of evidence.

Yeah, I've looked at those things. Some of those lines of evidence I have little to say against. Nonetheless, my idea remains reasonable to consider and to look for ways to falsify.

And the fact that there would be an enormous fucking crater left behind. Or a new continent and tectonic plate, I'm not really sure which would happen, but the thing to note would be "new;" younger than all the material laid down around it.

Now we're talking!

Ever heard of a great big hole in the Earth called the Pacific Basin?

 

[Stripe]

*Yes supercritical water is common near deep-sea volcanism. (Yes in this case the heat does convect away, but as long as it is kept up there is supercritical water there.)

Really? I didn't know that.

It surprises me that with convection an equilibrium can be reached that keeps the water in a supercritical state. But water has been found to do some pretty funky things!

Thanks.

 

[Stripe]

And you're educational background is... what?

I have a post-doctorate degree in retard spotting.

 

[IBSpify]

Also there's that whole wiping out all life and rendering the planet inhospitable thing.

Yeah. It'd take some sort of divine intervention for most of the major forms of land dwelling organisms to survive.

So for your theory to be tenable you need to evoke an untestable and unfalsifiable element into the model, and you don't see a problem with this?

 

[Laurens]

Naw, I like considering reasonable explanations that fly in the face of the established ideas.

Your explanation is not reasonable.

Answer how it accounts for all the evidence I listed that we have for the Earth being billions of years old. If it can't do that it's not even worth thinking about.

 

[Laurens]

Yeah. It'd take some sort of divine intervention for most of the major forms of land dwelling organisms to survive.

:lol:

"Reasonable explanation" aye?

 

[Stripe]

So for your theory to be tenable you need to evoke an untestable and unfalsifiable element into the model, and you don't see a problem with this?

Nope.

For a start we haven't even established how time constrained this event might be to explain what we see. I think we can hold off invoking extra-scientific explanations for the time being.

 

[Laurens]

Nope.

For a start we haven't even established how time constrained this event might be to explain what we see. I think we can hold off invoking extra-scientific explanations for the time being.

Urm except you said that divine intervention would be required to save the animals from death...