The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: It's Water at the Centre of the Earth  (Read 22447 times)

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #50 on: 10/06/2008 20:28:07 »
Andrew please stop posting nonsense.
"The sun does not destroy anything! you cannot destroy water molecules. You can however change them into something else!"
 Bollocks.
Splitting them into hydrogen and oxygen destroys the molecules - they are not water any more.
You seem to have forgotten the difference between molecules and atoms.
you said this "The energy at the core is pretty obvious to most of the world! The fact hat isotopes do not come to the surface and when they do they have not been observed does not prove that they are not there!"
Helium does come up from deep in the ground, that's where we get it from so it's been studied pretty well. It comes up at much the rate expected from the generation of heat by nuclear decay.
But it's the wrong isotope to be derived from fusion in the way you sugest.

"You both repeatedly insult my intelligence. May I remind you that I have added some very important experiments to science by thinking of ways to demonstrate how solutes alter flow in fluids using gravity.  "
I must have missed those- please cite a peer-reviewed reference.

" May I ask you both what you have contributed to science that is originally yours? If you have contributed I would love to read about it."
 I've contributed odds and ends to science but, as you may notice, I'm not using my real name on this site so I can't give refernces. Perhaps you might think about whether or not anything I have posted here counts as a contribution.

"Now lets have a go at answering the lack of the isotope searched for presumably in molten magma from volcanoes?"
Lets' not, because that makes a wrong presumption and I have already addressed the fact that people certainly have looked. 3He is bloody expensive- it would be well worth finding if it were there.


"The above is such a ridiculous statement it makes me cringe. Please explain how either of us could prove or disprove what is going on at the core?"
well, if you were paying attenetion you would realise I already did- the lack of 3He proves thater's no fusion to speak of.
My idea thet there's no fusion is consistent with what's known about fusion. Your idea isn't. Are you pretending that all the other physicists are wrong and you are right- even though you haven't a shred of evidence?


"Presumably I don’t think the sun is a massive source of energy? again a blatant attempt to belittle me! "
Yep, dead right. I have no problem belittling people who think they know better than all the world's nuclear physicists even in the absense of proof and in the face of contradictory evidence.

"The suns rays playing on a leaf is not quite the massive energy source that your posts require."
 Just as soon as you show me the leaf that can produce as much power as the shuttle's engines that will be relevant.

"We were talking about how pressures that come no where near the pressures at the core can change the way water behaves by turning it into hot ice. If the pressure can do this maybe it can produce some of the many different materials found on earth also by fusing them together? For example, we can fuse different metals together in a furnace at ground level and create an alloy"

Yes, indeeed and we are several orders of magnitude to cold for nuclear fusion- even the sun's core is (as I said) too cold to do that very quickly. Also, the core is generally agreed to be mainly iron. This would get in the way of the hydrogen reducing the rate of fusion still further.


"The sun evaporates water, it condenses and returns back to the earth as rain, it is not destroyed!"
So?
"We separate oxygen and hydrogen using hydrolysis"
 Not in thie usual sense of the word hydrolysis- but it makes sense if you look at the meanings of the words.
"and find that when we burn the two components together it returns water back to the Earth"
Yep, so what?

"Could it possibly be that the hydrogen and oxygen cannot remain separated once they have been burned? "
What does that mean?
Once they are burned they give water. In water the 2 elements are combined- not separated.


"Does this not offer some proof that water is a result of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms being here on earth under the gravitational force due to the size of the earth’s mass?"
Of course it doesn't. You ask me not to insult  your inteligence, but you say things like that, even though you were the one to point out that the space shuttle's engines burn hydrogen and oxygen.
Well, they use rockets to get about in space where they are otherwise in freefall. Certainly less gravity than here on earth and "zero Gravity" from a lot of practical points of view.
Didn't you realise you were contradicting yourself?

"Or do we just ignore these results also? "
What results? You gaven't shown any  results, just some odd  comments. Some of them contradictory, some nonsensical.
"We forge a cast iron block and find that it oxidizes and decomposes. We have not destroyed the iron by allowing it to rust away we have just decomposed it and reassembled it as rust!"
Thanks for the reminder that, even at the temperatures used in forging metals, the atoms are not affected.
The core of the earth isn't that much hotter and that's why the atoms don't undergo fusion.

The droplets I refered to are the ones you mentioned implicitly. They are the ones that scatter light  and render a rocket's exhaust visible. They don't form in space because the pressure is way too low and the temperature is way too high.
There's nothing magic about this.
The lack of a vapour trail from a rocket in space is exactly what you ought to expect.

You say it's because they are atomised (ie reduced to atoms)
Nonsense. While the sun's UV radiation is capable of doing thst slowly you would need a huge energy supply to do it as fast as the rocket makes steam. In fact you would need to supply power at exactly the same rate as the rocket dissipates power (law od conservation of energy).
Even the sun isn't up to doing that. The water will get atomised but nothing like fast enough to explain the lack of a vapour trail.

Your idea that the vapour trail disapears because it's atomised has 2 problems.
Firstly it isn't an neccessary idea- the trail should be invisible anyway.
Secondly, it would need something to supply the dissociation energy required to atomise the water. There's no adequate energy source there to do that.

"BC says you need a lot of energy to break the bonds of water on Earth. I am trying to say that may be so on Earth but may not be the case out in the reduced pressure of space."
How in the name of all that's holy does a water molecule know if it's on earth or in space? It takes 424.4 KJ/mol to dissociate a water molecule into O and OH. It then takes yet more energy to split the OH. That value applies wherever you happen to be.
Again, if you were right you would have violated the principle of the conservation of energy and solved the energy crisis. You have not really done this so please stop speculating as if you have.


"I have stated before and will state again water is water on earth because the gravitational force of earth enables oxygen and hydrogen to exist at the right distance apart"
You can state it as often as you like- it's not true. There's plenty of water in space. Gravity is something like 34 orders of magnitude less strong than the bonds that hold water together- gravity simply isn't relevant.

"Ever put your finger over the end of a cycle pump and felt the heat generated as the air rushes through the gap. An air compressor for example will generate heat by compressing the air."
Work is done when the force moves through a distance. Because rock is practically incompressible the distance it shrinks whaen compressed is small. Therfore the work involved is samll. Gases are much squashier. Try taking a lump of rock and squashing it. See if the rock gets hot as a result of this.
"And TBH we do not know how hot it really is down there do we?"
Speak for yourself, we have a pretty good idea because, if it were very much hotter it would lose heat through the earth's crust faster. From masuerments in mines and such we know how fast it's losing heat so we know how hot it is.

"Again you are assuming that your presumed higher temperatures apply at the immense pressure of an estimated several million atmospheres."
Actually the presumption I made was that the temperature and pressure at the centre of the earth are less than those at the centre of the sun.
Do you seriously doubt that?
Also the concentration of hydrogen at the sun's centre is higher because it's not diluted by a vast excess of iron.


What you said was "it is their relationship with the mass of a planet that dictates their perceived behaviour not the atoms themselves." and I asked how they knew the planet's mass.
That's a perfectly reasonable question. Imagine (as a flight of pure fantasy that's never had any observeable effect) that the atoms have a gravimeter with them.
OK that can measure the strength of the gravitational field. However they don't know if that's because they are ner a very small mass or a long way from a large mass.
So, once again I ask, how do they know?

"is thought to be a weak force because it is not understood and it is well known and publicised that gravity is not understood. "
Bollocks again. Gravity is thought to be a weak force becaus it has been measured and found to be weak.
If I pick up a book I can do so in spite of the fact that I am working against the gravity of an entire planet.
That's a weak force. How well understood it is doesn't matter- if we come up with a better theory to explain it we won't suddenly weigh more.
Again, I wonder why you write such tosh.

". Once we begin to realise that gravity is not a weak force but a very powerful stabilising force that prevents the earth from falling apart or being blown to bits (for now at least) we can begin to understand how earthquakes and volcanoes which are many times more powerful and destructive than any of our nuclear weapons continue to cause devastation and show little signs of abating."
Nope, gravity is still a weak force but if you have an entire palnnet atracting an entire mountain- rather than a book, the stored energy involved can be quite big.
Also the volcanoes are largely powered by nuclear reactions within the earth- not gravity. The original ones when the earth was young were graviational but they have cooled a lot since then.

"This also has problems explaining where all this energy came from to weld the atoms together to make our planet."
Technically it has exactly the oposite problem. If 2 molecules bump into eachother under gravity they are very likely to bounce off again. Getting them to stick (at least until you have something the size of dust) is the problem. OTOH I have given up hope of you getting this sort of thing right.
Here's another case in point "We argue that light has mass, yet we ignore the fact that light shines on the earth every day. " actually the effect of radiation pressure on things like satelites needs to be taken into account whne designing and maintaining them.

As I write this I see you have come up with another post. I will sign off here but just note that, while you can't see meteorites takingh off from earthe, you also can't seeh hydrogen and helium leaving. But the fact that they are both rare in our atmosphere tells us they do leave.
It's not easy to know which effect is bigger but, at least since the ancient Greeks measured the earth, it hasn't changed much.
And also that "For the life of me I do not see how atoms and larger particles can suddenly decide to fuse together and create a planet that has enough energy to melt it all together. Sounds more like Mickey Mouse than reality" just measn that you don't understand that a particle flying in at escape velocity caries a lot of energy. That's why rockets need a lot of stored energy and why re-entry generates so much heat.
 

lyner

  • Guest
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #51 on: 10/06/2008 20:57:36 »
Quote
For the life of me I do not see how atoms and larger particles can suddenly decide to fuse together and create a planet that has enough energy to melt it all together. Sounds more like Mickey Mouse than reality! I am by no means alone in an expanding earth, in fact it was for many years the only explanation. Plate tectonics offered another explanation to the way continental drift occurs. But by no means disproved the growing earth problem.
Well, 'for the life of me' I can't understand how anyone can presume to have a view of Science if they can't understand the idea of energy transforms. They are happening all around us. In this case, the Energy comes from Gravitational Potential and, via Kinetic Energy as the particles accelerate together ends up as thermal energy in the middle when all the bits have arrived.
Read about some real Science Andrew. It does make sense, you know.

And, BC, I've just read your post.
You are getting far too steamed up about this. Be cool man!
« Last Edit: 11/06/2008 11:37:08 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #52 on: 11/06/2008 18:16:53 »
Japanese scientist claims breakthrough with cold fusion experiment
by Donald Melanson, posted May 26th 2008 at 12:10PM
A physics professor from Osaka University now claims to have made a scientific breakthrough of another sort, with him now touting nothing less than a supposedly successful demonstration of cold fusion. That was apparently done by forcing deuterium gas under pressure into an evacuated cell containing a sample of palladium dispersed in zirconium oxide, which caused the deuterium to be absorbed by the palladium sample, resulting in a denser, or “pynco” deuterium, with deuterium nuclei that are close enough together to fuse. That process also supposedly resulted in a rise in temperature to about 70° Celsius, and a temperature in the center of the cell that remained “significantly warmer” than the cell wall for 50 hours after the test. Of course, there doesn’t appear to be any other scientists ready to back up the experiment just yet, so you’ll have to rely on your own armchair science expertise to get your hopes up or down accordingly on this one.

Lets say 3 million atmospheres at the core. (A figure quoted by others) This immense pressure would undoubtedly suffice to push atoms close enough to excite them and fuse them together! No need for the immense heat you are asking for evidence of!

BC you keep talking about heat and power to generate fusion. Why not immense pressure to do the same job?

Quote
Yes, indeeed and we are several orders of magnitude to cold for nuclear fusion- even the sun's core is (as I said) too cold to do that very quickly. Also, the core is generally agreed to be mainly iron. This would get in the way of the hydrogen reducing the rate of fusion still further.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2008 19:56:44 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #53 on: 11/06/2008 18:29:33 »
RE water molecules and your reply. I stated the sun does not destroy anything, it merely changes it into something else. You reply splitting them into hydrogen and oxygen destroys the water moecules. I say no it does not it changes the water moecules into hydrogen and oxygen! Nothing get's destroyed just converted!

RE citing a peer reviewed reference. All in good time BC.

Quote: How in the name of all that's holy does a water molecule know if it's on earth or in space?

Could the pressure of 1 atmosphere + the gravitational force of the planet suffice to bring the molecules together to form water and the abscence of pressure suffice to prevent the molecules from foriming into water after they are burned?
« Last Edit: 11/06/2008 19:28:19 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #54 on: 11/06/2008 19:36:33 »
Andrew,
Splitting a house into bricks doesn't destroy the bricks, but it destroys the house; it isn't a house any more.
Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen doesn't destroy the hydrogen and oxygen, but it destroys the water; it isn't a molecule any more.
It's the same idea and I'm sure you are only pretending not to understand it.

We have seen "cold fusion" before. It's widely cited as how to do bad science.
The same real problem affects this story as affected the last one. If you get fusion you get neutrons. Neutron radiation kills people.
If they succeded they should be dead.

Nobody repeated the original "cold fusion" and nobody has repeated the latest claim.
It's not really science so why even raise it here?


You seem not to have noticed but I did mention the effect of pressure on fusion rates.
This is what I said "Actually the presumption I made was that the temperature and pressure at the centre of the earth are less than those at the centre of the sun."
The pressure at the centre of the sun is estimated as 10^16 Pa that's about 10^11 atmosphers.
so, from a very simple point of view the sun should fuse hydrogen something like three thousand times faster than the earth on account of the pressure. (Of course, the low temperature of the earth makes it much less efficient as a fusion reactor, then there's the minor consideration that there's no real reason to supose there is any hydrogen there to fuse.)



Now Andrew, what stopped you searching for an estimate of the presure at the sun's centre, comparing it to that at the centre of the earth and working out that you were talking nonsense?
And re peer reviewed refferences, a good time would be now, while someone is asking. What are you waiting for? Some of the more cynical might wonder if you haven't got any.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #55 on: 11/06/2008 20:46:14 »
Hydrogen appears to be married off with oxygen on earth. Whereas in space hydrogen appears to be happy all by itself!

Molecular Hydrogen in Space
Series: Cambridge Contemporary Astrophysics
Edited by F. Combes
Observatoire de Paris, DEMIRM
G. Pineau des Forets
Observatoire de Paris de Meudon, DAEC
 (ISBN-13: 9780521782241 | ISBN-10: 0521782244)
Molecular hydrogen is the most abundant molecule in the Universe. In recent years, advances in theory and laboratory experiments coupled with breakthrough observations with important new telescopes and satellites have revolutionized our understanding of molecular hydrogen in space. It is now possible to address the question of how molecular hydrogen formed in the early Universe and the role it played in the formation of primordial structures. This timely volume presents articles from a host of experts who reviewed this new understanding at an international conference in Paris. This book provides the first multi-disciplinary synthesis of our new understanding of molecular hydrogen. It covers the theory of the physical processes and laboratory experiments, as well as the latest observations. It will therefore be an invaluable reference for all students and researchers in astrophysics and cosmology.
• The first multi-disciplinary review of our new understanding of molecular hydrogen in space • Covers recent developments in theory, laboratory experiments, and observations from the latest telescopes and satellites • Includes articles by experts from around the world
Although on Earth hydrogen ranks ninth among the elements in abundance, making up 0.9 per-cent of the mass of the planet, it is by far the most abundant element in the universe, accounting
for about 75 percent of the mass of all matter. Collected by gravitational forces in stars, hydrogen is converted into helium by nuclear fusion, a process that supplies the energy of the stars, including the Sun. Hydrogen is present in all animal and vegetable substances in the form of compounds in which it is combined with carbon and other elements. In the form of hydrocarbons, it is a constituent of petroleum and coal. It also constitutes nearly 11 percent of the mass of seawater. The hydrogen content of the Earth's atmosphere remains low because of the continual escape of the gas into space.
http://www.c-f-c.com/specgas_products/hydrogen.htm

Fusion:
"The plasma performance depends on how much pressure you can put in, as the fusion power is proportional to the pressure squared," says Martin O'Brien, a programme manager at Culham, the UK's centre for fusion research. "You want to operate at as high a density as possible. But at high densities the performance can degrade. Experimentally it is hard to go higher than an empirically observed density, the Greenwald Limit. There are a variety of boundaries due to instabilities, and all factors must be optimised."

Looked up the Greenwald Limit only to find it is no longer a limit!


When hydrogen and oxygen are fused together to form water do they not prove that we do not need a great deal of heat and energy to form it? We can see it happen in the plume of a rocket when hydrogen and oxygen are burned. It is not the burning that makes the water form because it does not form in space! So if it is not the heat and energy from the rocket what is it that makes the water droplets appear from the exhaust on earth?
« Last Edit: 11/06/2008 20:58:04 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

lyner

  • Guest
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #56 on: 11/06/2008 21:11:10 »
Andrew
Quote
Lets say 3 million atmospheres at the core. (A figure quoted by others) This immense pressure would undoubtedly suffice to push atoms close enough to excite them and fuse them together! No need for the immense heat you are asking for evidence of!

How can there be 'no doubt' in your mind that the pressure would be sufficient? Have you actually read that? Do you know what is actually required for fusion to occur? The nuclei  have to be traveling fast to overcome the very strong mutual repulsive energy.  The temperature corresponds to the average kinetic of the particles; hence you need a high temperature (don't call it 'heat' it's the wrong terminology). A high pressure improves the probability of them meeting each other. Have you read about how fusion works? I think you are a bit selective about what you want to learn. Is that in case you might have to change your mind?

And having just read the last para of your last post, I fear that are not aware of the difference between chemical reactions and nuclear fusion.
 

lyner

  • Guest
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #57 on: 11/06/2008 21:16:50 »
Quote
Hydrogen appears to be married off with oxygen on earth. Whereas in space hydrogen appears to be happy all by itself!
Could that just be because there is a lot of Oxygen around the planet so the Hydrogen atoms which find themselves here will combine with them? Did you see some particular significance in what you wrote?

BTW  The fusion experiments at Culham use plasmas of very low density compared with the material at the Earth's core. You seem to be inferring something which is just not the case. They've got it right - you've got it wrong.

« Last Edit: 11/06/2008 21:24:54 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #58 on: 12/06/2008 19:34:44 »
Andrew, OK I forgot the squared term. Oops!
The pressure at the earth's core is roughly 3000 times less than at the centre of the sun so the rate of fusion is roughly ten million times less.
You seem to have shot yourself in the foot.
Oh, I almost forgot. Hydrogen is common. Another thing it is is less dense than molten rock.
It would float up out of the earths core. Since it's not there, it can't fuse.
Free hydrogen in the atmosphere gets lost to space- it's to do with escape velocity and the Boltzmann distribution.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #59 on: 12/06/2008 21:27:25 »
Hang on a minute. Did I say hydrogen was at the core?

And even if the rate of fusion is 10 million times less it does not prove or disprove that fusion may be happeing at the core under the 3 million atmospheres or more of pressure. I doubt also that hydrogen makes it to space when it is liberated but combines with free oxygen molecules to reform into water as per the rocket exhaust. Now who has shot themselves in the foot?

Andrew, OK I forgot the squared term. Oops!
The pressure at the earth's core is roughly 3000 times less than at the centre of the sun so the rate of fusion is roughly ten million times less.
You seem to have shot yourself in the foot.
Oh, I almost forgot. Hydrogen is common. Another thing it is is less dense than molten rock.
It would float up out of the earths core. Since it's not there, it can't fuse.
Free hydrogen in the atmosphere gets lost to space- it's to do with escape velocity and the Boltzmann distribution.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2008 22:40:22 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

lyner

  • Guest
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #60 on: 12/06/2008 23:11:16 »
Quote
I doubt also that hydrogen makes it to space when it is liberated but combines with free oxygen molecules to reform into water

It takes an awful long time for a Hydrogen molecule to combine with Oxygen at 'room temperature' and at low concentration. It combines readily enough in a strong concentration once you have lit the flame but that is a different matter entirely. The numbers count, Andrew.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2008 23:24:59 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #61 on: 12/06/2008 23:32:13 »
Quote
Hydrogen appears to be married off with oxygen on earth. Whereas in space hydrogen appears to be happy all by itself!
Could that just be because there is a lot of Oxygen around the planet so the Hydrogen atoms which find themselves here will combine with them? Did you see some particular significance in what you wrote?

RE: takes a long time for hydrogen to combine with water? No it does not at the exhaust of a rocket! it is instantaneous. Even in a hydrogen fueled car it is instantly produced yet not in space! So we have eliminated the heat from combustion as a factor. We are now left with answering why oxygen and hydrogen pair up in 1g yet fail in the vacuum of space.

It is sad that clever people like yourself adopt the "if it ain't written in a book it ain't true" attitude. We could achieve so much more with a little free thinking. For example: What if our 1g changes to say 10g do we still have hydrogen floating up or does it remain in close proximity to the earth?

Indeed there was a lot of significance in what I wrote. And as much in your reply. Oxygen on earth combines with hydrogen to make water. But not in space! The mixture coming out of the exhaust contains both oxygen and hydrogen. The velocity of the exhaust emissions could be used to explain why oxygen and hydrogen don’t produce water droplets in space. We could say that they escape before they have a chance to pair up. Yet on earth this argument must also apply and we still get water droplets forming.
 

Offline SFMA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #62 on: 12/06/2008 23:57:32 »
Andrew please stop posting nonsense.
"You cannot destroy water molecules. You can however change them into something else!"
I totally agree with you. Water is the only substence that resists all difrent states. These are some of the reasons why it's fit to be at centre.
 

lyner

  • Guest
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #63 on: 13/06/2008 07:48:30 »
Quote
Water is the only substence that resists all difrent states.
What's that supposed to mean?
There are plenty of planets where water is not in great profusion on the surface. If you had to base a theory on one of those places could you guarantee you'd come up with the same conclusion about how special that particular compound is?
Have you any formal training in Chemistry, at all?
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #64 on: 13/06/2008 08:31:01 »
Quote
"is thought to be a weak force because it is not understood and it is well known and publicised that gravity is not understood. "
Bollocks again. Gravity is thought to be a weak force becaus it has been measured and found to be weak.
If I pick up a book I can do so in spite of the fact that I am working against the gravity of an entire planet.
That's a weak force. How well understood it is doesn't matter- if we come up with a better theory to explain it we won't suddenly weigh more.
Again, I wonder why you write such tosh.


First of all. You are not working against gravity when you pick up the book on earth. In fact gravity is working with you by powering the hydraulics and electrical signals that enable you to lift up the book ! It also provides you with the ability to remain pushing against the earth in order to lift the book. Remember the old adage For every action there is an opposite equal reaction? In fact the same applies to a massive cable crane lifting huge weights high up in the air. Gravity provides the cable hoist with the ballast required to prevent it from falling over so the hoist again is able to push against the ground because of gravity not, I repeat not pull against gravity!

Gravity grows the tree that makes the book. It provides the life that makes the machines to turn the wood into paper and the ink that writes the text and the brain that compiles the text! Gravity is the only force, it generates the light from the sun, it drives the worlds weather and ocean currents, it raises mountains and carves out valleys. It causes volcanoes and earthquakes than make our atomic weapons look like Childs play! Gravity makes a magnet that is perceived to lift up a pin to prove that gravity is the weaker force when gravity is supporting the person or contraption that is holding the magnet! Gravity causes the lightening and the tempest that follows. Gravity causes gigantic balls of ice to fall from the sky.
We launch a rocket into space using a tremendous amount of force from the rear of the rocket in order to propel it away from the surface and into orbit. Yet gravity can bring it down to earth in a ball of fire without using a rocket to drive it!

Gravity provides stability yet has the power to destroy and will eventually destroy and decompose every last single one of us, yet pathetic humans believe they have mastered the universe when they cannot even master their own free thinking!
 

lyner

  • Guest
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #65 on: 13/06/2008 13:11:57 »
It's fine, if you want to subscribe to the Religion of Gravity, to look at things in that way.
However, Science attempts to work at things in a different way. The actual mechanisms and causal relationships are thought to be important, rather than circular arguments and fancy.
As only one of the essential forces which we study, Gravity must take its place amongst the Coulomb Force and the intra Nuclear forces. They are all involved in the way everything acts so why just choose Gravity?
What sort of Science are you working with if you ignore selected parts of the conventional subject, apparently quite randomly?
Perhaps if you tried to think in terms of Energy rather than restricting your thoughts to Gravitational Forces, you might get somewhere. A Force does nothing until it starts to produce motion - and then Energy is involved.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #66 on: 13/06/2008 16:12:20 »
I am trying to say that without gravity there are no other forces. Imagine a void without mass and without gravity. Would we see any force? No! Gravity is the sum of all of the particles that make up the mass. Not just pulling as preconceptions lead us to believe but each particle adding to the mass repels and attracts and it is this polarity if you like that enables the alignment of particles in the ways that we find them aligned on earth. When we try to liberate atoms that are bound together we are fighting against the binding force of gravity and when we break the particles free or push them closer together we are resisting gravity in the true sense and the nuclear energy that we release is the reaction to the action of splitting the atoms. In another thread asking about the shape of the cloud over a nuclear explosion. I asked what shape the same cloud from the same explosion would be in space? It would not be mushroom shaped because it has no resistance from the weight of the atmosphere and the attraction of gravity which after all prevents the chain reaction of more atoms being split continuing indefinitely, damping down the supposedly stronger force and snuffing it out. Does that sound like a weak gravity force or a strong gravity force?
 

lyner

  • Guest
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #67 on: 13/06/2008 19:26:53 »
Without the other Forces there is no Gravity either. It is a total system which we have chosen to interpret in the conventional terms which we use in Science.
Why do persist in your fanciful view of things? Are you really more clever than all the Scientists who you are choosing  to disagree with? Have some sense. You haven't come up with a single serious argument against any of established Science.
It's all fantasy.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #68 on: 13/06/2008 20:03:02 »
Andrew,
This "First of all. You are not working against gravity when you pick up the book on earth. " is exactly the sort of bollocks I'd lke you to stop posting.
If gravity were not there the book would be weightless and the force required to move it would be practically zero. This is plainly not the case. It's against the force of gravity that you do work when lifting a book and it's that same force that pulls the book down again if you let it go.
The force of gravity is really small whether you like it or not. The only reason it looks big is that it's always an atractive force. The electromagnetic force is about 10000000000000000000000000000000000 times bigger but, since half the time it's repulsive, it
doesn't add up so much as gravity.

As for "I am trying to say that without gravity there are no other forces." I can hardly imagine a dafter statement. Ask an astronaught or a satelite.
If they needed gravity then they would fall to bits and stop working. They don't.

At least try to look at reallity before wasting bandwidth with this sort of stuff.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #69 on: 13/06/2008 21:00:00 »
Ok then lift the planet up with the book if you want it in simple terms!

And contrary to your statement about ask an astronaut if they fall to bits. It might surprise you but they have serious medical problems in space and experience a greatly accelerated aging process, including rapid muscular atrophy, degeneration of the nervous system, degeneration of the bones with the formation of stones in the vital organs because they cannot excrete them in their urine! Serious circulation and metabolism problems, repiratory problems, renal problems, and heart problems. visual problems, nausea, reduced immune response to infections, psoriasis and other skin problems. Finger and toenails drop out and fungal infections in the root beds. Might have trouble asking a satellite though so I will wait for it to fall out of orbit before asking it. After all it was made on Earth in 1g gravity and it will return to earth someday in the not too distant future weather it wants to or not.





« Last Edit: 13/06/2008 21:02:20 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

lyner

  • Guest
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #70 on: 13/06/2008 21:49:00 »
Do astronauts fall apart? No they don't. Their bodies don't function quite as they should because they evolved to work best under 1G. Their individual cells work quite happily because (by being small and of low mass) they are dominated by electric forces and couldn't giveadamn what the G field was.
Broadcast and comms satellites (which are made of familiar materials and are full of sensitive electronic equipment) function perfectly well for years and years in the microgravity conditions of low Earth orbit. Do they fly apart? No. Electric fields dominate there as well.
Please go away and learn something about real Science before you type another character on this forum. You have no idea how ignorant you appear.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #71 on: 13/06/2008 22:26:49 »
Hmmm so an astronaut can walk out of the space craft starkers and not fall to bits. Have you thought about putting that forward to NASA?
 

lyner

  • Guest
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #72 on: 13/06/2008 23:20:56 »
What forces are causing them problems under those conditions? Is Gravity involved? If you put someone into a chilled decompression chamber at ground level the same thing will happen. 
And, of course, if you do the sums, you will find that the actual gravitational field in low Earth orbit is virtually the same as it is on the surface. The inverse square law (do you subscribe to that) tells you that the field at 200km, as a fraction of the field on the surface, is about

(6000/6200) squared or 93%g
Very little different.
You didn't spot that.

The difference is in the pressure.
You, of course, will reply that gravity causes the pressure difference. But the pressure will be the same (+/- a tiny amount) if you go well beyond the Moon, where the gravitational force is a tiny fraction.

Learn some basic Science before you publish your ideas.
« Last Edit: 13/06/2008 23:25:25 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #73 on: 14/06/2008 12:16:26 »
"Hmmm so an astronaut can walk out of the space craft starkers and not fall to bits. Have you thought about putting that forward to NASA?"
No, but if he wnated to he could walk about inside the ship with no clothes on. Still no gravity and he's fine.
If on the other hand hee were to cimb into a big vacuum chamber here on earth he would be in truble.
So as you should have realised, vacuum is bad for people, low gravity - not a big roblem in the short term to people and no problem at all for solid state electronics that rely on the effects of electromagnetic forces.

Andrew, Why are you spouting such nonsense?
I can't believe that you think it's true so why bother with it?
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #74 on: 14/06/2008 14:49:39 »
Even short term space flight poses very serious health complications for astronauts. Do your research before assuming it does not. That is a fact whether you like it or not. And this is in microgravity not zero gravity. The pressure the earth generates in its atmosphere is the force that prevents us humans from being boiled alive. Put water in a vacuum and it will boil. Our own body pressure would destroy us if we did not have the pressure inside the space suit or the ship.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

It's Water at the Centre of the Earth
« Reply #74 on: 14/06/2008 14:49:39 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums