comingfrom wrote:No, gravity works well at the surface, to hold all the water, and air, in place.JHL wrote:So in other words, Paul, all the water in all the world's oceans should be sloshing over to one side and pouring off, right?No.Are you somehow unfamiliar with the shape of the earth and why it's so?
I am also not unfamiliar with misdirection.
comingfrom wrote:What has the shape of earth to do with gravity 400 kms up?
comingfrom wrote:I was disputing that gravity at 400 kms is 86% of G, as witnessed by the weightlessness of astronauts.
I wasn't talking about the nature of an orbit.
We know there are variations in gravity. NASA makes maps to show it.
comingfrom wrote:Now you are expressing your opinions, which is at odds with the typical EU views.JHL wrote:Expanding on my point above, any thoughtful person can realize that gravity is a per se placeholder for a phenomenon we don't understand. Pretty much everything is. Gravity is a mechanical record of that phenomenon, so to put it.
But it's fruitless to surmise that gravity is a phenomenon that escapes those mechanics, especially with terms relating to a local planetary scale - Neptune isn't a planet with a gravitational relationship with the primary? There's no gravitational component at the galactic level, dark matter fiction notwithstanding?
Gravity can't escape mechanics, but Neptune, and galaxies, escaped gravity?
Sorry, but that sounds preposterous to me. Completely illogical
comingfrom wrote:I first started pondering this question when I was a youth, in the days of Apollo, and Skylab, and MIR.
When I saw the astronauts become weightless immediately upon leaving the atmosphere, I wondered why they didn't fall towards the Sun, after they got outside the hold of the Earth's gravity.
The way gravity was taught to me, it is what holds the planets in their orbits,
so, logically, unless you are perched precisely on the cusp where earth and Sun's gravities are equal, one should be accelerating either towards one or the other. But that is not what we see.
comingfrom wrote:I hoped one would correct my misconception, if they surmised it to be nonsense.
Instead I got one who thought I was talking about the nature of an orbit, and tried to imply I don't know the shape of earth.
It is necessary to visualize the Earth as a thermionic cathode of
12,600 km diameter with a red-hot surface, but this surface is enclosed
by a relatively thin, 20 to 60 km wet rocky layer, the crust.
This layer, together with the negative space charge, reduces but does not
completely inhibit the cathode's thermionic emission. -Michael Csuzdi
Any theory attempting to explain the Earth's magnetic field should
equally explain those paleomagnetic observations which indicate that in
the Earth's history cooling lava outflows solidified sometimes in the
presence of a reverse polarity ambient magnetic field. From these
observations the statement has been inferred that the geomagnetic field
reversed its polarity several times in the past. This inference is not
The geomagnetic field is the difference of two independently generated
magnetic fields, one is by the rotation of positive charges in the
magma, and the other is by the rotation of negative charges in the
These two magnetic generators can be examined separately.
Therefore, the qualitative properties of the geomagnetic field near to
the crust, below or above it, can be investigated on a· model which is a
charged spherical shell only, as in Figure 7-la. In turn, this shell
can be replaced by a wire coil (solenoid) either on a spherical or on a
cylindrical bobbin (Figure 7-2).
In this case an observer of fixed position can observe a
"reversal" of the magnetic· field. Of course, this is again Not a real
reversal of the coils' magnetic field.
The two magnetic generators of the Earth is a concentric arrangement of
the above discussed setup of two coils. Figure 7-4 illustrates the
resultant fields below and above the crust. The dot-dash line
indicates a possible position of the magnetic neutral zone.
this zone now can move up and down in the crust, depending on the flux
densities, or on the density ratio of the two generated magnetic
fields, or on the radial positions of the two fields.
In the Earth's
history the magnetic flux density of certain surface areas changed
radically, and this caused the shift of the local magnetic neutral zone
in the vertical direction.
...it seems possible to me and perhaps even likely that successive flows of lava will appear relatively reversed as a natural result of local magnetic field interactions. -webolife
That's a brilliant piece of work. Where did you find it? Has it been previously linked in a post?
... assumes the conventional model of the hot core of the Earth,
Earth's water may have formed deep within mantle, says study
The simulations revealed that the silica and fluid hydrogen could form water when exposed to temperatures of just over 1400 degrees Celsius and at pressure 20,000 times higher than Earth's atmospheric pressure.
Silica is found in abundance above and below the surface of the Earth in the form of the mineral quartz the Earth's crust is 59 per cent silica.
They also believe the release of this pressure could be responsible for triggering earthquakes hundreds of kilometres below the Earth's surface.
"We were initially surprised to see in-rock reactions, but we then realised that we had explained the puzzling mechanism at the base of earlier Japanese experimental work finding water formation," said Professor Niall English from UCD School of Chemical and Bioprocess Engineering.
The findings were published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest