australopithecus
Active Member
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
One which you can't answer I might add.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.
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?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.
I said:This is closer to what would actually happen:
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.
Hmmm ... You know what? You might be right.nasher168 said:I'll post this again.
I've got some reading to do.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...
Stripe said:Hmmm ... You know what? You might be right.
People tend not to read long posts.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:
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.- What it is exactly that you are proposing, a coherent step by step account of what you think happened
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.- Evidence that you believe supports this proposal
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:- Why you think this is a better explanation than the standard geological explanation
Can you tell me exactly what is not clear?You're really not being clear, or coherent and it's getting on everyone's nerves.
It's hardly my fault that people choose to react like a vampire to a crucifix in the face of simple facts. :mrgreen: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...
Who are you? :?australopithecus said:Not learned much in your absence, have you?
Did you have a response to my ideas or are you just here to be annoying? :roll:australopithecus said:Thought so.
Stripe said:Did you have a response to my ideas or are you just here to be annoying? :roll:australopithecus said:Thought so.
Great!CosmicJoghurt said:It's kind of ironic to see you asking that.
Stripe said:Did you have a response to my ideas or are you just here to be annoying? :roll:australopithecus said:Thought so.
Do you know why the Earth is round?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.