Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #891708 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-03-07 22:00 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-04-10 00:57 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 125 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-03-07 22:00 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2025-03-08 12:26 +1300
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-03-08 12:03 +1100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-03-08 07:09 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-03-08 22:46 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> - 2025-03-08 22:58 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2025-03-09 00:38 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2025-03-09 01:30 -0500
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-09 06:55 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-30 23:09 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-03-09 11:27 +0100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-09 13:58 -0500
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum jerry.friedman99@gmail.com (jerryfriedman) - 2025-03-10 15:01 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-03-10 19:04 +0100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum jerry.friedman99@gmail.com (jerryfriedman) - 2025-03-10 20:31 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-30 23:30 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-03-09 20:50 +1100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-03-10 03:54 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum jerry.friedman99@gmail.com (jerryfriedman) - 2025-03-10 19:16 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Bertitaylor @novabbs.org (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-10 21:55 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum jerry.friedman99@gmail.com (jerryfriedman) - 2025-03-12 16:21 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-12 23:35 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-03-13 11:32 +1100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 23:29 -0400
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-13 04:00 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-30 23:54 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-03-13 13:15 +1100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-03-13 09:08 +0100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-26 22:54 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-03-26 16:12 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-26 23:55 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-03-26 17:44 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-03-27 02:10 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-03-27 08:07 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-27 22:40 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-03-27 17:35 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-28 02:07 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-03-27 20:38 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-28 04:21 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-30 23:04 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-03-30 16:38 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-08 02:36 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-04-07 20:33 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-08 05:38 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-04-08 08:09 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum x <x@x.org> - 2025-04-08 14:57 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-09 13:05 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-04-09 07:45 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-09 21:13 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-04-09 14:43 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-10 22:13 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-10 22:41 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-03-12 11:58 -0400
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 11:50 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-03-12 22:01 +0100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-03-13 11:37 +1100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-03-13 09:08 +0100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> - 2025-03-13 10:33 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-12 23:43 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2025-03-10 09:14 -0400
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-03-10 15:16 +0100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-31 04:01 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-13 23:37 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum jerry.friedman99@gmail.com (jerryfriedman) - 2025-03-10 19:54 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-03-11 11:29 +1100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 21:05 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-03-11 20:23 +1100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-11 10:04 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 11:46 -0500
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-11 20:31 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 04:47 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum jerry.friedman99@gmail.com (jerryfriedman) - 2025-03-11 14:56 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 11:56 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-31 03:54 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-31 03:21 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-11 10:23 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-12 00:15 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-11 00:37 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 23:07 -0500
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-03-11 05:00 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 11:23 -0500
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-11 21:59 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-03-08 15:00 -0800
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2025-03-09 01:04 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-03-08 17:50 -0800
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2025-03-09 02:21 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-03-08 20:36 -0800
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2025-03-09 21:21 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-03-09 15:18 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-09 21:28 -0500
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-03-10 03:16 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-08 21:21 -0600
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-31 02:49 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-30 22:51 -0500
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-07 21:51 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-03-08 05:39 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-03-07 16:11 -0800
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-27 22:49 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-03-27 17:37 -0700
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-03-09 21:05 -0400
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-03-10 03:19 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-03-10 14:55 -0400
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-11 20:19 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-03-12 11:40 -0400
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-12 20:05 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-03-26 17:08 -0400
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-26 21:33 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> - 2025-03-26 18:21 -0400
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-26 22:31 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> - 2025-03-27 00:14 -0400
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-27 05:53 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-27 22:33 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-03-27 10:32 +1100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-27 00:04 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> - 2025-03-26 23:58 -0400
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-03-27 12:59 -0400
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-27 21:40 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-04-07 16:18 -0400
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-07 21:35 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-03-13 11:47 +1100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-03-13 09:08 +0100
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-13 08:19 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-30 22:00 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-09 21:09 +0000
Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-10 00:57 +0000
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 15:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <67cef447$0$5215$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #891746 |
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote: > On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:50:06 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> > wrote: > > > > >Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of the > >earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and write down > >the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is first year > >physics.) From that you get a differential equation for the pressure as > >a function of radius. No matter what simplifications you make, you will > >get the same conclusion: the deeper you go, the higher the pressure. > >Which is something that ocean divers can confirm from their own experience. > > Right, thanks. > > The pressure going deeper always increases, assuming it is > transmitted. Whether it is metal or hot fluid, the transmission > is good. There is nothing to assume there, this is just statics. (unless there would be a supporting layer of near infinite strength) And on usage: the mere fact that the Earth is spherical proves that such internal material strength does not exist. This is precisely how 'planet' is defined by astronomers: as a body for which gravity overwhelms all material forces, (so it must be spherical, or more precisely, an ellipsoid of rotation) Conversely, smaller bodies, such as asteroids, that can maintain irregular shapes cannot be planets, by definition. Earth is a planet, Jan -- "Scrith is an unobtainium"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-31 04:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <852b479772b36ceac420ae63a9e7f135@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #891747 |
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 14:16:39 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:50:06 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of the >>>earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and write down >>>the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is first year >>>physics.) From that you get a differential equation for the pressure as >>>a function of radius. No matter what simplifications you make, you will >>>get the same conclusion: the deeper you go, the higher the pressure. >>>Which is something that ocean divers can confirm from their own >>> experience. >> >> Right, thanks. >> >> The pressure going deeper always increases, assuming it is >> transmitted. Whether it is metal or hot fluid, the transmission >> is good. > > There is nothing to assume there, this is just statics. > (unless there would be a supporting layer of near infinite strength) Tectonic plates show that there is a sea of magma or molten beneath the crust upon they float. The rocks get crushed to form that. Beneath the magma, solid rock growing cooler. Till the temperature is near absolute zero at the core. Meaning that the Earth continually creates heat energy which dissipates into the infinite universe. And manifests as cbr along with other distant sources. Woof woof > > And on usage: the mere fact that the Earth is spherical > proves that such internal material strength does not exist. > This is precisely how 'planet' is defined by astronomers: > as a body for which gravity overwhelms all material forces, > (so it must be spherical, or more precisely, an ellipsoid of rotation) > > Conversely, smaller bodies, such as asteroids, > that can maintain irregular shapes cannot be planets, by definition. > > Earth is a planet, > > Jan --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-13 23:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d69ed14a9235ae93ea1feea631e0b9dd@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #891746 |
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:14:49 +0000, Rich Ulrich wrote: > On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:50:06 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> > wrote: > >> >>Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of the >>earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and write down >>the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is first year >>physics.) From that you get a differential equation for the pressure as >>a function of radius. No matter what simplifications you make, you will >>get the same conclusion: the deeper you go, the higher the pressure. >>Which is something that ocean divers can confirm from their own >> experience. > > Right, thanks. > > The pressure going deeper always increases, assuming it is > transmitted. If transmitted entirely downwards and not sideways as for and arch. Woof woof Whether it is metal or hot fluid, the transmission > is good. > > The real-world heating by radioactive decay is not trivial, but > that isn't a part of the other issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jerry.friedman99@gmail.com (jerryfriedman) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 19:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d95900145784cfad3e255b531e15d986@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #891732 |
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 9:50:06 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote: > On 09/03/25 09:58, Phil wrote: >> On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote: > >>>>> It's just as implausible as the suggestion (easily disproved) >>>>> that the pressure is zero at the centre of the earth. >>>> >>>> The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the stars >>>> and planets. Read a first year book on physics. >>> >>> Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net >>> gravitational force or pressure is zero. > > Read that first year book yourself. Did you find the words "or > pressure"? No, I didn't think so. You've tried to conclude something > about the pressure from the gravitational force. That doesn't work, > because they are different quantities. > > Gravitational force, like all forces, is a vector quantity. It has a > magnitude and a direction. That makes it possible that a number of > nonzero vectors can sum to zero; and, indeed, that is what happens > inside a spherical shell. > > Pressure is a scalar. If you add two pressures, you get a higher > pressure. There's no such thing as a negative pressure to cancel out the > first pressure. > > Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of the > earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and write down > the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is first year > physics.) From that you get a differential equation for the pressure as > a function of radius. No matter what simplifications you make, you will > get the same conclusion: the deeper you go, the higher the pressure. > Which is something that ocean divers can confirm from their own > experience. Even swimming pool divers. > At the centre of the earth, the gravitational force is zero but the > pressure is at a maximum. > >> Presumably, by an analogous argument, the pressure at the centre of a >> balloon is also zero? > > Actually, the gravitational force at the centre of a balloon is zero, if > you count only the force due to the balloon itself. But of course, you > do have to count the attraction from the earth as well. > > Either way, what you conclude about the gravitational force says nothing > about the pressure. They're different quantities. They're different, but they are connected. Since the gravitational force at the center of the Earth is 0, you can conclude that the pressure /gradient/ there is 0. Hint to Arindam. -- Jerry Friedman --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 11:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <vqo05a$1kf0u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #891754 |
On 11/03/25 06:54, jerryfriedman wrote: > On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 9:50:06 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote: > >> On 09/03/25 09:58, Phil wrote: >>> On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote: >> >>>>>> It's just as implausible as the suggestion (easily >>>>>> disproved) that the pressure is zero at the centre of the >>>>>> earth. >>>>> >>>>> The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the >>>>> stars and planets. Read a first year book on physics. >>>> >>>> Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the >>>> net gravitational force or pressure is zero. >> >> Read that first year book yourself. Did you find the words "or >> pressure"? No, I didn't think so. You've tried to conclude >> something about the pressure from the gravitational force. That >> doesn't work, because they are different quantities. >> >> Gravitational force, like all forces, is a vector quantity. It has >> a magnitude and a direction. That makes it possible that a number >> of nonzero vectors can sum to zero; and, indeed, that is what >> happens inside a spherical shell. >> >> Pressure is a scalar. If you add two pressures, you get a higher >> pressure. There's no such thing as a negative pressure to cancel >> out the first pressure. >> >> Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of >> the earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and >> write down the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is >> first year physics.) From that you get a differential equation for >> the pressure as a function of radius. No matter what >> simplifications you make, you will get the same conclusion: the >> deeper you go, the higher the pressure. Which is something that >> ocean divers can confirm from their own experience. > > Even swimming pool divers. > >> At the centre of the earth, the gravitational force is zero but >> the pressure is at a maximum. >> >>> Presumably, by an analogous argument, the pressure at the centre >>> of a balloon is also zero? >> >> Actually, the gravitational force at the centre of a balloon is >> zero, if you count only the force due to the balloon itself. But of >> course, you do have to count the attraction from the earth as >> well. >> >> Either way, what you conclude about the gravitational force says >> nothing about the pressure. They're different quantities. > > They're different, but they are connected. Since the gravitational > force at the center of the Earth is 0, you can conclude that the > pressure /gradient/ there is 0. Hint to Arindam. Re-reading this thread, I have suddenly realised what has misled Arindam. He keeps using "force" and "gravitational force" as if they were interchangeable. Not all forces are gravitational forces; and to calculate pressure you have to add up all the forces, not just the gravitational component. At the centre of the earth, you also have to taken into account the radially directed non-gravitational force that comes from the weight of all the rocks (and so on) above your head. -- Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org Newcastle, NSW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 21:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mn.54f17e9355d14950.127094@snitoo> |
| In reply to | #891761 |
Thus spake Peter Moylan: > At the centre of the earth, you also have to > taken into account the radially directed non-gravitational force that > comes from the weight of all the rocks (and so on) above your head. Say what? "non-graviational" from "weight"? -d -- There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 20:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <vqove7$1ta40$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #891763 |
On 11/03/25 15:05, Snidely wrote: > Thus spake Peter Moylan: > >> At the centre of the earth, you also have to taken into account the >> radially directed non-gravitational force that comes from the >> weight of all the rocks (and so on) above your head. > > Say what? "non-graviational" from "weight"? Perhaps I should have phrased that better. Consider a hypothetical cave explorer at a distance r from the centre of the earth. The gravitational force experienced by that person, i.e. that person's weight, is that due to the sphere of radius r below him. The gravitational attraction between the person and the earth is not affected by that part of the earth at greater radii. That point is agreed by everyone here. However there is another relevant force. The roof of the cave is supporting the weight of the material above it. (And it is a weight, so I shouldn't have called it non-gravitational. But it's different from the weight of the cave explorer.) As long as the roof doesn't collapse, that force doesn't affect the explorer. Go deep enough, though, and that second weight is big enough so that the roof will indeed collapse, so our explorer will (very briefly) experience it. Deep underground, the pressure is so high that no voids can exist. No caves, so no journey to the centre of the earth. -- Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org Newcastle, NSW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 10:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vqp1r2$1tful$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #891767 |
On 11/03/2025 09:23, Peter Moylan wrote: > Deep underground, the pressure is so high that no voids can > exist. No caves, so no journey to the centre of the earth. That can't be right. I read a book about just such a journey. *Clearly* you don't know what you're talking about! -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 11:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vqppd0$1bj8c$4@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #891768 |
On 3/11/25 5:04 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > On 11/03/2025 09:23, Peter Moylan wrote: > >> Deep underground, the pressure is so high that no voids can >> exist. No caves, so no journey to the centre of the earth. > That can't be right. I read a book about just such a journey. *Clearly* > you don't know what you're talking about! > Pressure at the center of Earth is about 3.7 million atmospheres! You can guesstimate it by using the main three approximate densities involved: basalt: 5 grams/cc liquid iron: 11 grams/cc solid iron: 13 grams/cc The top part, basalt, is about 3000 km thick. The middle part liquid iron is about 2000 km thick. The core solid iron is about 1500 km radius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 20:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87f03ffed1ff5cea6cd3eaeaa4df7b36@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #891776 |
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:46:24 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 3/11/25 5:04 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >> On 11/03/2025 09:23, Peter Moylan wrote: >> >>> Deep underground, the pressure is so high that no voids can >>> exist. No caves, so no journey to the centre of the earth. >> That can't be right. I read a book about just such a journey. *Clearly* >> you don't know what you're talking about! >> > > > Pressure at the center of Earth is about 3.7 million atmospheres! You > can guesstimate it by using the main three approximate densities > involved: Bullshit. The pressure is 0 at the centre of any planet or star. It is declared to be high simply to declare arbitrarily that Einstein's e =mcc is correct. Fusion from hot core caused the solar heat. So gravitational pressure has to be there to make it so hot even though the gravitational force is zero. Ridiculous but that is the perfectly abominable Einsteinian physics. Woof-woof woof woof-woof woof Bertietaylor > > basalt: 5 grams/cc > liquid iron: 11 grams/cc > solid iron: 13 grams/cc > > The top part, basalt, is about 3000 km thick. > The middle part liquid iron is about 2000 km thick. > The core solid iron is about 1500 km radius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 04:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mn.591f7e93faf51a96.127094@snitoo> |
| In reply to | #891767 |
Peter Moylan blurted out: > On 11/03/25 15:05, Snidely wrote: >> Thus spake Peter Moylan: >> >>> At the centre of the earth, you also have to taken into account the >>> radially directed non-gravitational force that comes from the >>> weight of all the rocks (and so on) above your head. >> >> Say what? "non-graviational" from "weight"? > > Perhaps I should have phrased that better. Consider a hypothetical cave > explorer at a distance r from the centre of the earth. The gravitational > force experienced by that person, i.e. that person's weight, is that due > to the sphere of radius r below him. The gravitational attraction > between the person and the earth is not affected by that part of the > earth at greater radii. No, because the gravitational attraction between the person and the earth is the /vector/ sum of the attraction between each part of the person and each part of the earth, and some of those parts of the earth are in the opposite direction of the ones below the person (and many of in oblique direction). > > That point is agreed by everyone here. no > However there is another relevant force. The roof of the cave is > supporting the weight of the material above it. (And it is a weight, so > I shouldn't have called it non-gravitational. But it's different from > the weight of the cave explorer.) As long as the roof doesn't collapse, > that force doesn't affect the explorer. Go deep enough, though, and that > second weight is big enough so that the roof will indeed collapse, does that happen before or after magmafication? > so our explorer will (very briefly) experience it. Deep underground, the > pressure is so high that no voids can exist. I can't imagine something that would cause cavitation in the core, true. > No caves, so no journey to > the centre of the earth. I certainly agree to that. /dps -- And the Raiders and the Broncos have life now in the West. I thought they were both nearly dead if not quite really most sincerely dead. -- Mike Salfino, fivethirtyeight.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jerry.friedman99@gmail.com (jerryfriedman) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 14:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <35987b6f7e3420b81c47c4f63e7aabc5@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #891770 |
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 11:47:06 +0000, Snidely wrote: > Peter Moylan blurted out: >> On 11/03/25 15:05, Snidely wrote: >>> Thus spake Peter Moylan: >>> >>>> At the centre of the earth, you also have to taken into account the >>>> radially directed non-gravitational force that comes from the >>>> weight of all the rocks (and so on) above your head. >>> >>> Say what? "non-graviational" from "weight"? >> >> Perhaps I should have phrased that better. Consider a hypothetical cave >> explorer at a distance r from the centre of the earth. The gravitational >> force experienced by that person, i.e. that person's weight, is that due >> to the sphere of radius r below him. The gravitational attraction >> between the person and the earth is not affected by that part of the >> earth at greater radii. > > No, because the gravitational attraction between the person and the > earth is the /vector/ sum of the attraction between each part of the > person and each part of the earth, and some of those parts of the earth > are in the opposite direction of the ones below the person (and many of > in oblique direction). .. Peter's right. What cancels are the forces on the person from all parts of the Earth at greater radii than the person. The weight of the person is due only to the part of the Earth whose distance from the center is less than the person's. This is much more easily proved by Gauss's Law (which applies to gravitation as well as to electrostatids) than by integrating those force vectors. -- Jerry Friedman --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-12 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mn.62cc7e93bfd2a149.127094@snitoo> |
| In reply to | #891772 |
Lo, on the 3/11/2025, jerryfriedman did proclaim ...
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 11:47:06 +0000, Snidely wrote:
>
>> Peter Moylan blurted out:
>>> On 11/03/25 15:05, Snidely wrote:
>>>> Thus spake Peter Moylan:
>>>>
>>>>> At the centre of the earth, you also have to taken into account the
>>>>> radially directed non-gravitational force that comes from the
>>>>> weight of all the rocks (and so on) above your head.
>>>>
>>>> Say what? "non-graviational" from "weight"?
>>>
>>> Perhaps I should have phrased that better. Consider a hypothetical cave
>>> explorer at a distance r from the centre of the earth. The gravitational
>>> force experienced by that person, i.e. that person's weight, is that due
>>> to the sphere of radius r below him. The gravitational attraction
>>> between the person and the earth is not affected by that part of the
>>> earth at greater radii.
>>
>> No, because the gravitational attraction between the person and the
>> earth is the /vector/ sum of the attraction between each part of the
>> person and each part of the earth, and some of those parts of the earth
>> are in the opposite direction of the ones below the person (and many of
>> in oblique direction).
> ..
>
> Peter's right. What cancels are the forces on the
> person from all parts of the Earth at greater radii
> than the person. The weight of the person is due
> only to the part of the Earth whose distance from
> the center is less than the person's.
>
> This is much more easily proved by Gauss's Law
> (which applies to gravitation as well as to
> electrostatids) than by integrating those force
> vectors.
I don't think I'm disagreeing with that. You're just completing an
answer I only started. The effect I describe results in the outer
shell cancelling itself out, as in the more complete answer. Gauss's
Law [1] is a long time in my past, and probably pushed out by learning
a fistful of programming languages and by not having reminders of it.
What I was reacting to is probably a misunderstanding of Peter, as my
ear heard what he said suggesting that the individual sneaking inside
that outer shell would feel that same weight as on the surface, but I
probably should have read his post a third time.
/dps
--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"
" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-31 03:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0b289b1630fa596e3a6788972b197279@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #891772 |
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:56:08 +0000, jerryfriedman wrote: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 11:47:06 +0000, Snidely wrote: > >> Peter Moylan blurted out: >>> On 11/03/25 15:05, Snidely wrote: >>>> Thus spake Peter Moylan: >>>> >>>>> At the centre of the earth, you also have to taken into account the >>>>> radially directed non-gravitational force that comes from the >>>>> weight of all the rocks (and so on) above your head. >>>> >>>> Say what? "non-graviational" from "weight"? >>> >>> Perhaps I should have phrased that better. Consider a hypothetical cave >>> explorer at a distance r from the centre of the earth. The gravitational >>> force experienced by that person, i.e. that person's weight, is that due >>> to the sphere of radius r below him. The gravitational attraction >>> between the person and the earth is not affected by that part of the >>> earth at greater radii. >> >> No, because the gravitational attraction between the person and the >> earth is the /vector/ sum of the attraction between each part of the >> person and each part of the earth, and some of those parts of the earth >> are in the opposite direction of the ones below the person (and many of >> in oblique direction). > ... > > Peter's right. What cancels are the forces on the > person from all parts of the Earth at greater radii > than the person. The weight of the person is due > only to the part of the Earth whose distance from > the center is less than the person's. > > This is much more easily proved by Gauss's Law > (which applies to gravitation as well as to > electrostatids) than by integrating those force > vectors. Good, so at the core the force and pressure are zero. At zero pressure there is chance of hollows in the core. Where temperatures should be near absolute zero. Woof woof > > -- > Jerry Friedman > > -- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-31 03:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0068048c04ea6b22f3e0a8143e3de8b3@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #891767 |
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 9:23:15 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote: > On 11/03/25 15:05, Snidely wrote: >> Thus spake Peter Moylan: >> >>> At the centre of the earth, you also have to taken into account the >>> radially directed non-gravitational force that comes from the >>> weight of all the rocks (and so on) above your head. Heh-hah >> >> Say what? "non-graviational" from "weight"? Someone is glimpse how much bogus the academic has to be to be influential by sucking up to the biases of those who fund them. > > Perhaps I should have phrased that better. Consider a hypothetical cave > explorer at a distance r from the centre of the earth. If it is a cave it has to be hollow. Experience shows us we get no pressure from the roof of the cave when we are in it. The gravitational > force experienced by that person, i.e. that person's weight, is that due > to the sphere of radius r below him. So when r is zero at the core there is no gravitational force from the sphere of radius zero below them. The gravitational attraction > between the person and the earth is not affected by that part of the > earth at greater radii. So one is weightless at the core of the Sun, Earth and planets. Arindam was taught this school in 1967. > > That point is agreed by everyone here. So where does the pressure come from if there is no force? > > However there is another relevant force. Huh? The roof of the cave is > supporting the weight of the material above it. (And it is a weight, so > I shouldn't have called it non-gravitational. But it's different from > the weight of the cave explorer.) Yes it is supporting the weight of material above it just like any arch. Any dome. The forces are distributed laterally. That is, sideways. Not down. As long as the roof doesn't collapse, > that force doesn't affect the explorer. And why should it collapse any more than any arch or dome. Go deep enough, though, and that > second weight is big enough so that the roof will indeed collapse, so > our explorer will (very briefly) experience it. That will happen when the distance is a few tens or hundreds of kilometers below the surface, Then yes no more caves can happen. Rocks get crushed, get hot, and melt. A vast sea of molten rock, upon which tectonic plates float. Point is that this magma ocean must have a finite depth. For if it reached the core there would be nothing spherical of radius r to press against. No force, no pressure at the core to create heat as a result. So no lava there, just soild matter, presumably iron and other metals. The temperature thus drops from the bottom of the magma layer to the bear absolute zero at the core. Why does the core not get heated up? Thousands of kilometers of rock insulste the heat from the cold core. Then, it is much easier for the heat to escape out to infinite space. But a fraction does reach the core. With piezo effect it creates the vast currents in the superconducting environment near the core to form magnetic field of Earth/ Sun. Woof woof woif woof Deep underground, the > pressure is so high that no voids can exist. No caves, so no journey to > the centre of the earth. From zero force enormous pressure is created! How mysterious. What fools these professor-apes be! Woof woof Bertietaylor --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 10:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c54eb9724e206dc86917060576da1922@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #891761 |
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 0:29:28 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote: > On 11/03/25 06:54, jerryfriedman wrote: >> On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 9:50:06 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote: >> >>> On 09/03/25 09:58, Phil wrote: >>>> On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote: >>> >>>>>>> It's just as implausible as the suggestion (easily >>>>>>> disproved) that the pressure is zero at the centre of the >>>>>>> earth. >>>>>> >>>>>> The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the >>>>>> stars and planets. Read a first year book on physics. >>>>> >>>>> Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the >>>>> net gravitational force or pressure is zero. >>> >>> Read that first year book yourself. Did you find the words "or >>> pressure"? No, I didn't think so. You've tried to conclude >>> something about the pressure from the gravitational force. That >>> doesn't work, because they are different quantities. >>> >>> Gravitational force, like all forces, is a vector quantity. It has >>> a magnitude and a direction. That makes it possible that a number >>> of nonzero vectors can sum to zero; and, indeed, that is what >>> happens inside a spherical shell. >>> >>> Pressure is a scalar. If you add two pressures, you get a higher >>> pressure. There's no such thing as a negative pressure to cancel >>> out the first pressure. Pressure is not a scalar. It is a vector with the same dimension as force. Yes there is such a thing as negative pressure, if we are talking about force directions.. Heard of decompression? There the force pulls the surface inwards, as pressure inside is negative with respect to outside. >>> >>> Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of >>> the earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and >>> write down the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is >>> first year physics.) From that you get a differential equation for >>> the pressure as a function of radius. No matter what >>> simplifications you make, you will get the same conclusion: the >>> deeper you go, the higher the pressure. Which is something that >>> ocean divers can confirm from their own experience. Handwaving above, typically pedantic, which needs to be fixed by the great good sense of Arindam, as he provided many years ago. To repeat, thus, as he had to do many times. Yes pressure increases with depth. But this is not continuously so. At some stage it peaks when there is enough mass below as there is enough mass above. There is crushing with mass above and mass below enough heat generated thus for rocks to melt. Then there is less crushing with less mass below and too much mass above pulling the molten matter up. At some depth there is thus less compression. The rocks cool. They become solid and act as thousands of kilometers of insulation from the lava heat. Till when the core is reached there is veryblittle pressure, very low temperature but a lot of current in the core. Remaining heat or pressure by the piezoelectric effect converts to continuously circulating direct steady current responsible for the magnetic field which is undeniable in presence. Without extreme coldness in the core the magnetic fields of Earth, Sun, dark matter, etc. could not exist. Thus there is nonlinearity involved. Small pedantic minds do not understand nonlinearity. They just don't get it, especially when they are puffed up academics. Arindam the greatest genius of all time made his living from all sorts of nonlinearities - and that too in hostile environments where he was always persecuted for his background and independent outlook. He has changed the world with his brilliant works, ranging from phased array antenna design to complex queuing systems for teletraffic.Now as he works fir himself he is enjoying himself thoroughly. >> >> Even swimming pool divers. Did they swim in a pool at the centre of the Earth? Woof-woof, what fools these pedantic apes be! Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs, educating academics) >> >>> At the centre of the earth, the gravitational force is zero but >>> the pressure is at a maximum. >>> >>>> Presumably, by an analogous argument, the pressure at the centre >>>> of a balloon is also zero? >>> >>> Actually, the gravitational force at the centre of a balloon is >>> zero, if you count only the force due to the balloon itself. But of >>> course, you do have to count the attraction from the earth as >>> well. >>> >>> Either way, what you conclude about the gravitational force says >>> nothing about the pressure. They're different quantities. >> >> They're different, but they are connected. Since the gravitational >> force at the center of the Earth is 0, you can conclude that the >> pressure /gradient/ there is 0. Hint to Arindam. > > Re-reading this thread, I have suddenly realised what has misled > Arindam. He keeps using "force" and "gravitational force" as if they > were interchangeable. Not all forces are gravitational forces; and to > calculate pressure you have to add up all the forces, not just the > gravitational component. At the centre of the earth, you also have to > taken into account the radially directed non-gravitational force that > comes from the weight of all the rocks (and so on) above your head.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-12 00:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f566b99721b58d4d1830a6b5534826e3@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #891769 |
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:23:49 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 0:29:28 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote: > >> On 11/03/25 06:54, jerryfriedman wrote: >>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 9:50:06 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote: >>> >>>> On 09/03/25 09:58, Phil wrote: >>>>> On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> It's just as implausible as the suggestion (easily >>>>>>>> disproved) that the pressure is zero at the centre of the >>>>>>>> earth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the >>>>>>> stars and planets. Read a first year book on physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the >>>>>> net gravitational force or pressure is zero. >>>> >>>> Read that first year book yourself. Did you find the words "or >>>> pressure"? No, I didn't think so. You've tried to conclude >>>> something about the pressure from the gravitational force. That >>>> doesn't work, because they are different quantities. >>>> >>>> Gravitational force, like all forces, is a vector quantity. It has >>>> a magnitude and a direction. That makes it possible that a number >>>> of nonzero vectors can sum to zero; and, indeed, that is what >>>> happens inside a spherical shell. >>>> >>>> Pressure is a scalar. If you add two pressures, you get a higher >>>> pressure. There's no such thing as a negative pressure to cancel >>>> out the first pressure. > > Pressure is not a scalar. It is a vector with the same dimension Oops, sorry, instead of dimension it should be direction, above. As I had intended earlier but was thwarted by over smart AI. as > force. Yes there is such a thing as negative pressure, if we are talking > about force directions.. Heard of decompression? There the force pulls > the surface inwards, as pressure inside is negative with respect to > outside. Jolly well pressure has direction, like pressure waves, pressure nozzles for hosing and blasting... Indeed pressure is the engineering application of force, from stitching in a particular direction or finding the right stuff for pressure vessels. >>>> >>>> Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of >>>> the earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and >>>> write down the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is >>>> first year physics.) From that you get a differential equation for >>>> the pressure as a function of radius. No matter what >>>> simplifications you make, you will get the same conclusion: the >>>> deeper you go, the higher the pressure. Which is something that >>>> ocean divers can confirm from their own experience. > > Handwaving above, typically pedantic, which needs to be fixed by the > great good sense of Arindam, as he provided many years ago. To repeat, > thus, as he had to do many times. > > Yes pressure increases with depth. But this is not continuously so. At > some stage it peaks when there is enough mass below as there is enough > mass above. There is crushing with mass above and mass below enough heat > generated thus for rocks to melt. Then there is less crushing with less > mass below and too much mass above pulling the molten matter up. At some > depth there is thus less compression. The rocks cool. They become solid > and act as thousands of kilometers of insulation from the lava heat. > Till when the core is reached there is veryblittle pressure, very low > temperature but a lot of current in the core. Remaining heat or pressure > by the piezoelectric effect converts to continuously circulating direct > steady current responsible for the magnetic field which is undeniable in > presence. Without extreme coldness in the core the magnetic fields of > Earth, Sun, dark matter, etc. could not exist. > > Thus there is nonlinearity involved. Small pedantic minds do not > understand nonlinearity. They just don't get it, especially when they > are puffed up academics. Arindam the greatest genius of all time made > his living from all sorts of nonlinearities - and that too in hostile > environments where he was always persecuted for his background and > independent outlook. He has changed the world with his brilliant works, > ranging from phased array antenna design to complex queuing systems for > teletraffic.Now as he works fir himself he is enjoying himself > thoroughly. > > >>> >>> Even swimming pool divers. > > Did they swim in a pool at the centre of the Earth? > > Woof-woof, what fools these pedantic apes be! > > Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs, educating academics) >>> >>>> At the centre of the earth, the gravitational force is zero but >>>> the pressure is at a maximum. As pressure is force divided by area, the pressure has to be zero when force is zero. >>>> >>>>> Presumably, by an analogous argument, the pressure at the centre >>>>> of a balloon is also zero? Definitely zero, for there is no surface there to press against. Just a lot of faster moving air going in all directions. If the core is solid iron and very cold there could be a steady current creating the magnetic field. >>>> >>>> Actually, the gravitational force at the centre of a balloon is >>>> zero, if you count only the force due to the balloon itself. But of >>>> course, you do have to count the attraction from the earth as >>>> well. >>>> >>>> Either way, what you conclude about the gravitational force says >>>> nothing about the pressure. They're different quantities. They are related by the formula force equals area multiplied by pressure. No getting away from it. >>> >>> They're different, but they are connected. Since the gravitational >>> force at the center of the Earth is 0, you can conclude that the >>> pressure /gradient/ there is 0. Hint to Arindam. >> >> Re-reading this thread, I have suddenly realised what has misled >> Arindam. You are misled like the rest of the world fooled by the abominable Einsteinian scoundrels. He keeps using "force" and "gravitational force" as if they >> were interchangeable. As gravitational force involving masses and distances is the force that is under discussion for the gravitational force and its consequent pressure at the core, that is not remarkable. Not all forces are gravitational forces; and to >> calculate pressure you have to add up all the forces, not just the >> gravitational component. The modern physicists in all their texts claim that it is gravitational forces creating enormous pressures create fusion, neutron stars, black holes etc. They ignore electric forces, nuclear forces that are the other forces. At the centre of the earth, you also have to >> taken into account the radially directed non-gravitational force that >> comes from the weight of all the rocks (and so on) above your head. Gibberish. The gravity force is the only one that is relevant. Like in any arch, the forces get distributed laterally and down so one can stay under a dome without any pressure. Wonder if this most beautiful Arindamic logic will enter any pedant's head. Woof woof woof woof-woof what fools these apes be. Bertietaylor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 00:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5ac661e1460372bb7015e75964d92d89@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #891754 |
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 19:54:55 +0000, jerryfriedman wrote: > On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 9:50:06 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote: > >> On 09/03/25 09:58, Phil wrote: >>> On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote: >> >>>>>> It's just as implausible as the suggestion (easily disproved) >>>>>> that the pressure is zero at the centre of the earth. >>>>> >>>>> The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the stars >>>>> and planets. Read a first year book on physics. >>>> >>>> Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net >>>> gravitational force or pressure is zero. >> >> Read that first year book yourself. Did you find the words "or >> pressure"? No, I didn't think so. You've tried to conclude something >> about the pressure from the gravitational force. That doesn't work, >> because they are different quantities. >> >> Gravitational force, like all forces, is a vector quantity. It has a >> magnitude and a direction. That makes it possible that a number of >> nonzero vectors can sum to zero; and, indeed, that is what happens >> inside a spherical shell. >> >> Pressure is a scalar. If you add two pressures, you get a higher >> pressure. There's no such thing as a negative pressure to cancel out the >> first pressure. >> >> Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of the >> earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and write down >> the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is first year >> physics.) From that you get a differential equation for the pressure as >> a function of radius. No matter what simplifications you make, you will >> get the same conclusion: the deeper you go, the higher the pressure. >> Which is something that ocean divers can confirm from their own >> experience. > > Even swimming pool divers. > >> At the centre of the earth, the gravitational force is zero but the >> pressure is at a maximum. >> >>> Presumably, by an analogous argument, the pressure at the centre of a >>> balloon is also zero? >> >> Actually, the gravitational force at the centre of a balloon is zero, if >> you count only the force due to the balloon itself. But of course, you >> do have to count the attraction from the earth as well. >> >> Either way, what you conclude about the gravitational force says nothing >> about the pressure. They're different quantities. > > They're different, but they are connected. Since > the gravitational force at the center of the Earth is > 0, Good. So there is NO force in the centre of any star causing pressure, compression, heat, fusion of hydrogen then outward radiation - as presently accepted globally. As pressure is force divided by area there cannot be pressure where force is zero. No neutron stars, no black holes, no big bang, etc. you can conclude that the pressure /gradient/ > there is 0. Hint to Arindam. The pressure along a line from the surface to the centre of star or planet varies from zero to a peak and then to zero. Such is the pressure gradient within stars and planets. Such is the insight of Arindam as he published online several years ago. When the not terminally brainwashed learn this they may if they also have courage pay Arindam to lecture at good places, and publish his works. Not holding our breaths! Woof woof woof-woof woof Bertietaylor > > -- > Jerry Friedman > > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 23:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vqocub$1avg9$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #891762 |
On 3/10/25 7:37 PM, Bertitaylor wrote: > As pressure is force divided by area there cannot be pressure where > force is zero. You keep making this mistake. Your grasp of physics is like those in junior high, and that's why I think you are a high school drop out. And since you're surrounded here by fucking "engineers", nobody can correct you or make you understand this. So I have to again spend my dick's time to do what they couldn't :-( Fucking assholes. Net force of gravity is of course zero at the center of the Earth. But not higher up! And since all these forces higher up are "press"ing the material downward toward the center symmetrically, the resulting pressure of electromagnetic nature is conducted downward all the way to the center of the Earth, from all directions, creating enormous pressure, cause such pressures won't cancel each other out, but add. A simpler example is if you stand in a street and two identical trucks press you from front and back with equal forces, net force on you will be zero but the pressure from electromagnetic forces at contact surfaces of trucks and your body on your two sides will not cancel out. They add and will crush you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 05:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fad6e9332a26c969c0eaa41491e02e3f@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #891764 |
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 4:07:38 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote: > > On 3/10/25 7:37 PM, Bertitaylor wrote: >> As pressure is force divided by area there cannot be pressure where >> force is zero. > > > You keep making this mistake. Your grasp of physics is like those in > junior high, and that's why I think you are a high school drop out. Wrong as always you are, Roachie. Your knowledge of physics is lower by far than a bee. > > And since you're surrounded here by fucking "engineers", nobody can > correct you or make you understand this. Engineers know far far better physics than the current crop of pseudoscientific scoundrels posing as physicists. They have the highest contempt for these frauds who abuse maths to promote their nonsense theories. Having nothing useful to do, unlike engineers, these creatures spend their time sucking up to politicians for funding their weird antics. Computer art is now their greatest friend! All sorts of rubbish are made to appear true with their graphic presentation of absolute rubbish. > > So I have to again spend my dick's time to do what they couldn't :-( > Fucking assholes. Not having the wits for math abuse nor computer art you are left with mere abuse with the hope that will give you a credibility of sorts to the brainwashed. > > Net force of gravity is of course zero at the center of the Earth. But > not higher up! And since all these forces higher up are "press"ing the > material downward toward the center symmetrically, the resulting > pressure of electromagnetic nature Looks like you have heard of something called electromagnetic but you do not have a clue about it As a joke you are passable, Roachie. is conducted downward all the way to > the center of the Earth, from all directions, creating enormous > pressure, cause such pressures won't cancel each other out, but add. Just a stupid statement from one who has no clue that when there is no force there cannot be any pressure for pressure is force divided by area. There is no net force at the core for the forces go all around as in a done. No pressure under a dome unlike the pressure you get from the flat rock under which you reside, Roachie. > > A simpler example is if you stand in a street and two identical trucks > press you from front and back with equal forces, net force on you will > be zero but the pressure from electromagnetic forces at contact surfaces > of trucks and your body on your two sides will not cancel out. They add > and will crush you. Plain rubbish in many ways. Firstly it is a wrong analogy. The dome analogy suits the Earth core pressure situation, not trucks colliding with velocities. Dishonest as always you are, Roachie but that is only normal for a physicist who is licensed to bullshit. There is extraordinary force from the pressures on both sides doing the crushing. Force from pressure is always there, just got to be, causing distortion to the body Thirdly no em forces are involved. To pretend they do further demonstrates your dishonesty. If Trump really wants to Maga he must sack all physicists if they do not follow Arindam's physics. Woof woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof Bertietaylor --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web