0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"He made a massive assumption in declaring that the entire Earth was composed of the same stuff as lead balls! "Don't talk balls.
A donut? How exactly do you think it looks like? How think is this donut?
You seem pretty enthusiastic about this idea...
There is nothing whatsoever in any of the links you have posted that suggests there is a doughnut shaped inner core. Indeed quite the opposite.Here, taken from your Space Daily link "An odd, previously unknown sphere, some 360 miles in diameter, has been found at the bottom of the Earth."Even without considering the other problems with your speculations the absence of any evidence for a doughnut shaped core should end this thread right here.
There's TWO propositions that I'm making. The 'doughnut' or toroidal shape of the inner core is a guess that has the potential to solve many unresolved modelling problems of the Earth's interior..
Quote from: common_sense_seeker on 24/04/2009 14:36:13There's TWO propositions that I'm making. The 'doughnut' or toroidal shape of the inner core is a guess that has the potential to solve many unresolved modelling problems of the Earth's interior..Fine. The research in no way supports your speculation for a toroidal core.The research in no way speaks of a superdense material consisting of closely packed neutrons. Indeed the data indicate that the interior could not consist of such superdense material.In summary, the research you are quoting offers nothing in support of your speculation that the inner core is toroidal and it refutes your contention that it consists of ultra dense, packed neutrons.We are then left with nothing more that your own unsubstantiated speculations. Let's look at them.1. Which unresolved modelling problems are you referring to?2. How does a toroidal inner core address these? Let's see the math please.3. You say "I believe that Einstein's 'rubber sheet' analogy is actually incorrect and too simplistic." Guess what. That's because it is an analogy. It's to help people who can't handle the math. Forget his rubber sheet, what wrong with his math?
I've come to realise that the the toroidal inner core idea is more appropriate for the Sun; http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm. The work on the innermost inner core is too recent to rule out the possibility of a super-high density material.
The unresolved modelling that I'm interested in is the 100,000 year ice age cycle. THIS IS A TOTAL MYSTERY! It's one of the most basic elements of our climate, and we cannot resolve the issue with regard to the Earth's eccentricity cycle.
I believe there is a tidal explanation linked to the inclination cycle. The gravitational difference of the Earth's position above the Sun's ecliptic would have to be exaggerated for the idea to work. That's why I'm thinking laterally. The obvious other reason is that we don't have a QUANTUM THEORY OF GRAVITY. Put these two issues together and there is room for a resolution. It requires a lot of faith and thinking in pictures.
If you can consider this simple thought experiment: ..........yah de yah de yah
Quote from: common_sense_seeker on 25/04/2009 11:28:20I've come to realise that the the toroidal inner core idea is more appropriate for the Sun; http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm. The work on the innermost inner core is too recent to rule out the possibility of a super-high density material. No. You are mistaken. There is no indication from prior seismic or modelling studies that there is any super-high density material at the core of the planet. This latest research modifies earlier understanding to a small degree, but also excludes the possibility of super-high density material.To repeat, as clearly as I can, your own cited material falsifies your hypothesis. This - along with other actions - calls into question your entire approach and suggests you are indulging in pseudo science.1. You did made a false claim about the conlcusion of some valid research.2. You did not understand that the research demonstrated that your idea was false.3. When this was pointed out you repeat the misinterpretation while simultaneously switching the goal posts entirely.Quote from: common_sense_seeker on 25/04/2009 11:28:20The unresolved modelling that I'm interested in is the 100,000 year ice age cycle. THIS IS A TOTAL MYSTERY! It's one of the most basic elements of our climate, and we cannot resolve the issue with regard to the Earth's eccentricity cycle.The Milankovich cycles character and causes are very well understood. To claim it is a total mystery is either revealing your depth of ignorance on this subject, or is an outright lie. I would accept that there are details relating to this that can be refined. Perhaps you can point to specifics that concern you.Quote from: common_sense_seeker on 25/04/2009 11:28:20 I believe there is a tidal explanation linked to the inclination cycle. The gravitational difference of the Earth's position above the Sun's ecliptic would have to be exaggerated for the idea to work. That's why I'm thinking laterally. The obvious other reason is that we don't have a QUANTUM THEORY OF GRAVITY. Put these two issues together and there is room for a resolution. It requires a lot of faith and thinking in pictures.This has all the appearance of meaningless arm waving. Do you want to be specific.Quote from: common_sense_seeker on 25/04/2009 11:28:20If you can consider this simple thought experiment: ..........yah de yah de yahThis has nothing to do with the character of the Earth's core.Would you also confirm that you can't do the math on any of this?
No, I don't agree with your opinions at all.
I re-read the article and it quite clear that the professor thinks that this new innermost inner core could be the seed of the planets formation.
Everyone knows that a planet can't result from the coalescing of ordinary lumps of rock, for example.
The idea of a super-high gravitationally attracting innermost core that is a remnant from the earlist material of the universe is exactly the kind of thing he is thinking of.
Your knowledge of the problems surrounding 100,000 year glacial cycle simply isn't as good as mine. I've been reading the research papers for months and discussing it in another forum.
People who keep repeating "where's the math proof".....
This means that conventional math isn't necessarily right. i.e. Newton's law of gravitation.
What's your opinion on this report: http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/nature.html of Muller & MacDonald 'Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle: eccentricity or orbital inclination?'(My discussion forum is: www.youforum.co.uk/believersingravityshielding)