Moon was Created

[Split Rock]

NOW we have both CHEMICAL and PHYSICAL reasons for our model of the interior of the earth.

What do you have, Dad?

Sorry, but dad has *Divine Revelation* and that trumps your so-called "reasons."

 

[thaumaturgy]

Sorry, but dad has *Divine Revelation* and that trumps your so-called "reasons."

Oh I have no doubt about that. But still, I thought I'd regurgitate it so he couldn't claim no one brings science to this discussion.

Sadly I generated very similar materials months ago in about the same type of discussion with Dad.

The fact that he almost never substantively takes on the data makes me wonder how capable he is to handle the debate.

"Really", as he likes to say.

So now he has a truck load of science (and hopefully other geologists on here will kick in some stuff) so if he actually addresses the data and science in detail (not just hand-waivy) then we can move forward.

If not then I think we all know how honest dad is about the facing the debate.

If he can do so, then let him do so. I expect a serious discussion of the issues I have posted. If those fail to materialize I will draw the appropriate conclusions.

 

[dad]

But preaching is a physical action, so is climbing mountains and looking for things. Physical things, physical causes, right? Because they're clearly physical things. So you need to show me where on earth you've inferred the spiritual, here.

No. The physical manifestation was a spiritual cause. Created beings are made to be able to be influenced by the spiritual. The spiritual can be inferred by it's impact on men. Physical impacts, like say a rock falling on a foot, also have impact. We need to consider the type of impact.

Well prove it!

No need to prove stuff you make up. If you had some science, or the bible to back you up, why, we might look at your claim. Silly as it may sound.

During the slave era, most of the western world agreed that black people were somehow inferior. They were obviously wrong - why is that? Because the truth is not a democracy. I don't care how many people believe in spirits, dad, you still need evidence.

We have evidence. The kind of impacts on our lives that cause us to know the reality of spirits.
Blacks were not the only slaves. The slave era was all history, more or less! People in the bible were sold to slavery. Some boats used to be operated by slaves. Native North Americans had slaves. It isn't about right or wrong. Many people that believe in spirits worship devils, and gods. The evidence is not a popularity contest, whether we acknowledge that many had slaves, or most believe in spirits!!

Because a spiritual feeling is just like any other feeling. It is a feeling of awe at the stars perhaps, or delight in a piece of music or art. It is just plain ol' physical.

You have no idea what a spirit caused feeling is, unless you admit there are spirits! All you are doing is borrowing a word for your own belief system. That doesn't change the known reality of the spiritual.

Oh but dad, the razor says "do not believe in entities that have no good evidence." So there goes your spirits in mountains and on the moon.

The evidence the silly little PO imaginary razor demands, is physical type evidences. That cannot apply to spirits, they are not natural. Science, and that razor only apply to the natural.

Lots of people describe it in the same way. The astronauts did, too - because there are no spirits in the moon.

You don't know that.

Indeed. And that is why I don't believe there are spirits in the moon or in the mountains. You will find that, although many people are sadly deluded on some subjects, very few agree that spirits exist inside the moon.

Doesn't matter where they are MOST do believe in some form of spirits.

 

[dad]

Quoting from the Bible is no more evidence than is quoting from a Norse legend, or from Cinderella.

Same with quoting from your so called science myth books. So? At least the bible is proven 6 ways from Sunday. Prophesies, answered prayers, humans witnessed to rise from the dead, after DAYS, miracles, deliverance from addictions, angelic protection, etc etc.
How much better than a silly baseless myth.

 

[dad]

LOOK real close. Do you note the subtle REFRACTION of the p-waves at the various boundaries?

Yes.

First p and s-waves travel in arcs because of the increase in density and change in elastic modulus the deeper you go:

Speculation!!!

v=speed of the wave
E=elastic modulus of the rock
p=density of the rock

The rocks may not even be that dense as we think. Forget elastic. That is all based on assumptions, and carried down there by pure imagination.

We know they bend because we see wht they do in controlled circumstances.

Meaningless! They bend for certain reasons on the physical surface, if the inner earth is different, and also spiritual, the bends represent something else. Obviously.

There would be no shadow zones for s or p-waves if the earth were homogenous.

Right. Who says it was like that??? Get serious, that is a strawman.

We know exactly when a p-wave is generated (we have seismograms for that) and we know exactly when it arrives at different points on the earth.

I think we all know that. So?

We know it travels through an inhomogenous earth so we know something changes down there.

Right, I could have told you that. So??

Interestingly enough, from the above equation, we know when a p-wave will "bend" around to hit the surface again (look at the picture up top again, unless you're scared to do so).

You really have missed the point here. It does react when it hits something down there. The question is, what?? See, you have no idea how a wave would bend when passing through, say spiritual and physical material.

We've run all the experiments we need to model how fast a p-wave propogates, we know when and where it starts, we can predict when and where it will come out (and, when and where it WON'T come out).

So can I. Of course the waves go through something down there. Let's say that spiritual/physical material stopped a certain type of wave. Funny thing, liquid on the surface here is also known to do that. So, the poor wave gets down there, hits the P/S material, and cannot get through, and PO minded man thinks it hit liquid!!! Sad.

So far we know more than YOU would allow us to know with your worship of ignorance.

Gee thanks.

But, here's the kicker:

We know about what at least part of the Mantle is made up of largely because we've seen some mantle rocks.

No kicker at all.

Next time, try looking up:
KIMBERLITE PIPES. These carry up bits of the mantle in the form of XENOLITHS (yet another word you've probably never heard of, but then you know so vanishingly little about what the scientists actually do know about the structure of the earth).

Some other indications of how we know what's going on down there:

http://www.igpp.ucr.edu/Mantle_Rocks.htm

I looked at the link, and all I saw was a claim, no details. Maybe you could tell us in your own words what proves a rock is from a certain depth? Heavens, I hope it doesn't involve [FONT=times, times new roman, serif]Isotope geochemistry.[/FONT]
http://www.igpp.ucr.edu/Mantle_Rocks.htm

But fascinatingly so, we find that the chemistry simply makes sense from both the s and p-wave transmissions AND the requisite density, mass, and mineralogy that we see.

Reeeeally, now? Tell us about it.

So, while we may not know everything in absolute detail, we have so much more data than you have EVER provided in any of your posts that for you to insist we don't or that no one on here has presented you with sufficient data to argue actively against your suggestions is, well, SIMPLY WRONG.

Well, the only details so far you dredged up are either strawmen, inapplicable, or guesswork. Work on that.

presented and incumbent upon all of this, you will have to consider your arguments substandard.

Dream on.

If you insist that since no one "knows" then you are equally likely correct, then you will have to explain away all the data that we do know.

If you say we do, show us.

You are "honest" enough for that debate right? I mean you keep hounding people for data in support of their stance, now you have some.

I think if you were honest you would admit about now, you just totally lost it already. But, hey, do some homework this time, and see if you can find something.

This is so easy.

 

[thaumaturgy]

...

 

[dad]

How exactly did God make childbearing more difficult? Did He alter Eve's pelvis to make it more difficult? Did He just stop taking away the pain that would normally have occurred?

Well, I suspect that the immortal bodies we had, spiritual and physical together, underwent a sort of mini split when she triggered the change by flipping the fruit switch, so to speak! Being left in just a physical body, meant that childbearing was now tougher.

 

[dad]

Seismic waves are a very direct and quite clearly understood means of investigating the interior of the earth.

The following is distilled from THIS page on seismic waves in the earth.

p-waves are COMPRESSIONAL waves which can and do move through liquids. s-Waves (Shear waves) are incapable of moving through liquids.

p-wave velocity is simply modelled by this equation:

a=p-wave velocity
k=bulk modulus of the rock
u=shear modulus of the rock
p=density of the rock.

Simple, 4 terms explains things.

If the density or the moduli of the rock did not change with depth the speed would not change. Since we know how large the planet is we would be able to measure the difference between when a p-wave was generated on one side of the earth and when it was picked up on the other. We do this very thing and we see a couple of things:

1. p-waves follow and ARC through the mantle.

2. we know how long it takes for a p-wave to travel a known distance, so we know quite a bit about the density and moduli of the rock.

This arcing is caused by changes in density which REFRACT and bend the wave as it travels.​

This is shown in many wave applications, and is similar to the effect known as SNELLS LAW (why a pencil put in a glass of water looks "bent")​

This is a graph of the speed of the p and s-waves as they move down through the earth (remember, we see them when they come out on the other side or before they are occluded by the shadow zones​

Note how the s-wave disappears at the inner core. This is because s-waves cannot travel through a liquid. Not just that they are "bent" but that they cannot travel through a liquid.​

p-waves, however, can. And interestingly enough the fact that there is a layer of dense liquid is interestingly shown by a significant decrease in the p-wave velocity. It also bends here because of the abrupt change in density between the lower mantle and the outer core. This causes the p-waves to refract backwards, and results in the p-wave shadow zone.​

THIS is a map of the s-wave SPEEDS at 2,880 km deep into the earth:​

Just above the core-mantle boundary. We know this because we know WHERE the s-waves come from, and how far away they are picked up by seismometers (very sensitive instruments) nearly half-way around the earth!​

We also know the limitations of our ability to measure this, note how we don't have s-wave data on the outer core...because it doesn't transmit s-waves. We need the p-wave data for that!​

So we see very far into the earth.​

Dad, if you are "honest" enough to debate any of this then you now have a very good place to start. Don't just tell me things are "different" down there. Tell me WHY you know this. Tell me what part of THE earlier equation is WRONG​

Tell me how WAVES REFRACT in spiritual media such that they give data that matches the density, size, modulus and mineralogy of the mantle as we know it without it being a correlation.​

You have everything you need here. If you need more, provide it.​

Again, you have to address these points before you can make any others on this matter or I will have to conclude you are not honestly interested in debating the science.​

Already walked all over that whole line of deduction.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Speculation!!!

NO, OBSERVED FACT.

It's basically just plain old physics we see every single day.

The rocks may not even be that dense as we think. Forget elastic. That is all based on assumptions, and carried down there by pure imagination.

Based on KNOWN effects. Observed.

NOW, I will grant that you might be close on this one. I'd say you could have suggested that since this the equation is a ratio form that if one modulus changes in one way and the density changes in another then the speed will change. But then you have nothing in your corner, and as noted in post 240 we have some detailed information about mantle composition, and inner earth composition from OBSERVED samples.

You just suggested a change in the density which would only affect the p-wave arrival times. You did, however, to your credit, note that the word "elastic" was somehow involved.

If this was a test, I wouldn't be inclined to give you even partial credit. But you tried. And in the hands of one smarter I'd be inclined to think it showed some promise.

No one ever claims science is 100% in the know. But all you have to do is provide one bit of supporting evidence for your data. Failing that at least explain why this data and this equation seem to work out quite well to give a perfectly rational and workable model for what the earth looks like internally without it being as it seems.

So all you have are "conjectures", and you don't even really know where to start.

There are people who make a living using seismic waves to find oil. They do it every day and it works exactly as it should.

Ask a petroleum geologist how he or she uses "seismic wave travel times", how they can correlate them with rocks that they drill through. How all the math lines up and how all the physics just seems to work out, without once having to suggest "spiritual matter" in the mix.


Then explain why all the data we do have must be wholly thrown out because your unsupported conjectures about "spiritual matter" in the earth's interior is a superior explanation.


So far you are unable to support the contention that the science is wrong. At best you can posit questions, but there's still more data in support of the scientific explanation than anything you have posted on this forum.

Meaningless! They bend for certain reasons on the physical surface, if the inner earth is different, and also spiritual, the bends represent something else. Obviously.

You have nothing. You have provided me with no information. Just baseless speculation.

Moving on.

Right. Who says it was like that??? Get serious, that is a strawman.

I stated it to lay the ground work for how seismic waves provide a detailed description of the interior of the earth.

If you even started to understand the information you would have seen that.

I think we all know that. So?

I doubt very highly that you knew that.

You really have missed the point here. It does react when it hits something down there. The question is, what??

It refracts a KNOWN amount when it hits a boundary, according to KNOWN physical laws and following OBSERVED actions and from that KNOWN amount of refraction we know the nature of the density and modulus changes. From the KNOWN mineralogy we have information about the composition. From the KNOWN assemblages and densities in meteorites we have a lot of information.

But so far you seem to be shy on that end.

See, you have no idea how a wave would bend when passing through, say spiritual and physical material.

You have no idea that there IS spiritual matter in the earth's interior.

Scientists however, do have data in support of olivine, ferromagnesian minerals, a variety of silicates, Fe and Ni. We've SEEN evidence for it.

So, again, all you have is speculation. Nothing more.

So can I. Of course the waves go through something down there. Let's say that spiritual/physical material stopped a certain type of wave.

Where is this "spiritual matter"? I don't see any "Spiritual matter" xenoliths.

Funny thing, liquid on the surface here is also known to do that. So, the poor wave gets down there, hits the P/S material, and cannot get through, and PO minded man thinks it hit liquid!!! Sad.

You have nothing, I have quite a bit of data.

I looked at the link, and all I saw was a claim, no details. Maybe you could tell us in your own words what proves a rock is from a certain depth? Heavens, I hope it doesn't involve [FONT=times, times new roman, serif]Isotope geochemistry.

[/FONT]

Unlike you, I've actually had an isotope geochemistry class.

And in this case, mineral assemblages are a more powerful tool to explain GEOBAROMETRY.

And that's just plain ol' thermodynamics and equilibrium phase stability.

Reeeeally, now? Tell us about it.

You have been shown the data.

If you say we do, show us.

I HAVE.

I think if you were honest you would admit about now, you just totally lost it already. But, hey, do some homework this time, and see if you can find something.

This is so easy.

Dad, you have basically ruined this forum.

I have honestly presented data, asked for your response and you didn't give any real substantive response. You sling hand-waiving and conjecture, and then bash me for what little conjecture is needed to support the science.

[BIBLE]Luke 6:31[/BIBLE]

I even pointed out how you could have responded to the question of p-wave velocities.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Already walked all over that whole line of deduction.

No, you stumbled around it.

I will grant you came close on the p-wave velocity question, but I did the heavy lifting for you on that one.

That's part of scientific rigor.

 

[dad]

NO, OBSERVED FACT.

It's basically just plain old physics we see every single day.

My point, EXACTLY, thanks for that. On the surface of the earth that is all we can see.

Based on KNOWN effects. Observed.

Observed, where???/ On the surface. So???

NOW, I will grant that you might be close on this one. I'd say you could have suggested that since this the equation is a ratio form that if one modulus changes in one way and the density changes in another then the speed will change. But then you have nothing in your corner, and as noted in post 240 we have some detailed information about mantle composition, and inner earth composition from OBSERVED samples.

No! As CLAIMED in the post!! I asked you to pony up the whys and wherefores of HOW we know it from a certain depth. (I already googled it, so I know, but you need to say it in your own words, if you think the claims are valid)

You just suggested a change in the density which would only affect the p-wave arrival times. You did, however, to your credit, note that the word "elastic" was somehow involved.

What are you talking about?? My point is NOT a change in density. And the elastic bit, I think, is what we presume would have to happen, given the assumed density, pressure, etc. Well, forget the PO assumed, and start looking at what we actually got!

If this was a test, I wouldn't be inclined to give you even partial credit. But you tried. And in the hands of one smarter I'd be inclined to think it showed some promise.

No idea what you are talking about.

No one ever claims science is 100% in the know. But all you have to do is provide one bit of supporting evidence for your data. Failing that at least explain why this data and this equation seem to work out quite well to give a perfectly rational and workable model for what the earth looks like internally without it being as it seems.

Well, then, get to it! Find something that supports a PO interior, and the PO assumptions will gain currency.

So all you have are "conjectures", and you don't even really know where to start.

Yes, and I know where not to start, even more importantly. That is why I find answers. We do NOT start at the surface and presume downward that all follows the same rules.

There are people who make a living using seismic waves to find oil. They do it every day and it works exactly as it should.

Show me one that uses them to look into the foundations of the earth for that oil??! How deep is the oil they find? In the core!!!??? No. That is the harsh reality.

Ask a petroleum geologist how he or she uses "seismic wave travel times", how they can correlate them with rocks that they drill through. How all the math lines up and how all the physics just seems to work out, without once having to suggest "spiritual matter" in the mix.

Ask one if they find oil below, say even a hundred miles down. Really. Talk about neutering your point!

Then explain why all the data we do have must be wholly thrown out because your unsupported conjectures about "spiritual matter" in the earth's interior is a superior explanation.

You explain why you think you can claim that the interior is PO.

So far you are unable to support the contention that the science is wrong. At best you can posit questions, but there's still more data in support of the scientific explanation than anything you have posted on this forum.

Maybe, but you sure ain't posted it. If you did, why, what would I care what the center of the earth was like??? If it was a bunch of PO junk down there, fine. I live on the surface. No plans at all to move down there! If the whole earth is now like the surface, and PO, then it will change when we see the new earth anyhow!!! Either way I win. I cannot lose. Ever.
The only question is the state of the earth interior at the moment. So far, you just use assumption based myths to get you down there. Better to admit that we really don't know that much about the center of the earth. Be honest.

I stated it to lay the ground work for how seismic waves provide a detailed description of the interior of the earth.

If you even started to understand the information you would have seen that.

Yes, based on assuming it was a PO interior, which is meaningless.

It refracts a KNOWN amount when it hits a boundary, according to KNOWN physical laws and following OBSERVED actions and from that KNOWN amount of refraction we know the nature of the density and modulus changes.

No. It is not KNOWN that it is hot, or elastic, or any of the things you assume that the waves are really hitting. All we have is some changes in the waves, and certain areas where certain waves can't get through.

From the KNOWN mineralogy we have information about the composition. From the KNOWN assemblages and densities in meteorites we have a lot of information.

Such as?

But so far you seem to be shy on that end.

You haven't posted much too work with.

You have no idea that there IS spiritual matter in the earth's interior.

Neither do you!

Scientists however, do have data in support of olivine, ferromagnesian minerals, a variety of silicates, Fe and Ni. We've SEEN evidence for it.

I know. So??? What precisely do you think that means? I think olovine, by the by is one of the precious stones in the wall of New Jerusalem, if I recall!!!!! That means it would be a known material for eternal structures.

Where is this "spiritual matter"? I don't see any "Spiritual matter" xenoliths.

Point? How far down do they come from, and how do you claim to know?

Unlike you, I've actually had an isotope geochemistry class.

Ah, that could be a big part of your problem.

And in this case, mineral assemblages are a more powerful tool to explain GEOBAROMETRY.

Depends on how far down they really came from, and how they got the way they are, now doesn't it?

And that's just plain ol' thermodynamics and equilibrium phase stability.

As far down as that might apply, of course. The obvious question is, how deep is that??

 

[dad]

No, you stumbled around it.

I will grant you came close on the p-wave velocity question, but I did the heavy lifting for you on that one.

That's part of scientific rigor.

Newsflash: I tossed this stuff around with some heavy hitters a long time ago. They actually made me think.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Frankly I'm not much interested in what Dad has to say at this point, but I am sort of interested to know how we know about the bulk and elastic modulus of the rocks down in the mantle, since they do relate to the p and s wave velocities.

My wife's copy of the textbook The Interior of the Earth is a bit old (1982), but it does go over some of the early models relating bulk modulus to depth.

"Knowledge of the P and S velocities at a specified depth within the Earth gives two equations connecting three important physical quantiteis, namely the density and the bulk and rigidity moduli. A further equation connecting them is needed if they are to be determined uinqeuly from the velocities. In the homgenous shells of the Earth which are subject soley to adiabatic self-compresion, the Adams-Williamson equation provides hte additiona relationship needed. This equation relates increas in density with depth caused by adiabatic self-compression under hydrostatic pressure to the seismic velocities."

I hope that a geophysicist will come on here and actually help flesh out the broader understanding of how we know the moduli of the rocks. From what I've been able to gather it does also involve the earth's moment of inertia. Bullen formulated a 'compressibility-pressure hypothesis' which had a smoothly varying bulk modulus with depth and irrespective of composition or state below about 1000 km depth. However the text also says some of these models have been improved on by later models.

SOme of the lab work around some of these topics seems kind of interesting:

To help determine the chemical composition of the Earth's mantle, we characterised the high-pressure mineral assemblage of an undepleted natural peridotite—thought to be representative of the Earth's upper-mantle—to 107 GPa using high-resolution X-ray diffraction. At lower-mantle conditions, the peridotite transforms to the assemblage 76 (±2)% (Mg0.88Fe0.052+Fe0.013+Al0.12Si0.94)O3 orthorhombic perovskite by volume (at zero pressure), 17 (±2)% (Mg0.80Fe0.20)O magnesiowüstite and 7 (±1)% CaSiO3 perovskite. The measured room-temperature bulk properties of this high-pressure assemblage, together with a range of estimates of thermal properties of the constituent minerals, appear to be inconsistent with seismological constraints on the density and bulk modulus of the lower mantle. Our results suggest that the lower mantle differs in bulk composition (e.g., richer in iron, Mg#

0.85) from current estimates for the upper mantle, requiring some amount of segregation between the upper and lower mantle over geological history.

from:
Equations of state of the high-pressure phases of a natural peridotite and implications for the Earth's lower mantle

Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Volume 223, Issues 3-4, 15 July 2004, Pages 381-393

Kanani K. M. Lee , Bridget O'Neilla, Wendy R. Paneroa, Sang-Heon Shim, L. Robin Benedetti, and Raymond Jeanloz
(SOURCE)

Interesting what we know, and what we may have yet to learn.

And interestingly none of it requires the hand-waving of "spiritual matter".

Science is a wonderful thing.

 

[dad]

..I am sort of interested to know how we know about the bulk and elastic modulus of the rocks down in the mantle, since they do relate to the p and s wave velocities.

That is easy they know nothing at all! Not about the actual stuff down there. See, they do stuff like measure how much stress a rock can take.

"Many of the mechanical properties of a material can be extracted from a tensile test. In a tensile test, a sample is strained at a constant rate and the stress needed to maintain this strain rate is measured. The stress and strain can either be measured in terms of engineering stress and strain or true stress and strain. The elastic modulus, the ultimate tensile stress, the fracture stress, the modulus of toughness, and the modulus of resilience can all be determined from a tensile test."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensile_test

In other words, they play around on the surface, to determine the woulda should coulda stress levels in the assumed same state interior of the earth. Sandboxes are a wonderful thing!!

I hope that a geophysicist will come on here and actually help flesh out the broader understanding of how we know the moduli of the rocks. From what I've been able to gather it does also involve the earth's moment of inertia.

Hey, might as well get a ouigi board! The surface guessing of the geo POist will be no better. How could it be??

Bullen formulated a 'compressibility-pressure hypothesis' which had a smoothly varying bulk modulus with depth and irrespective of composition or state below about 1000 km depth. However the text also says some of these models have been improved on by later models.

If you are only speculating on a rinky dink 100k, we sure hope the speculators got a little better.

SOme of the lab work around some of these topics seems kind of interesting:

Hey, some sand box castles are interesting. But they don't really solve the mysteries of heaven and hell, or even tell us about the unknown interior of the earth.

Interesting what we know, and what we may have yet to learn.

I agree. How little man knows.

And interestingly none of it requires the hand-waving of "spiritual matter".

Right, as you admit, it is still playing on the PO surface, no wonder they hardly scratched the surface.

Science is a wonderful thing.

Yes, and plastic shovels are wonderful as well. Maybe measure that.

 

[FishFace]

No. The physical manifestation was a spiritual cause. Created beings are made to be able to be influenced by the spiritual. The spiritual can be inferred by it's impact on men. Physical impacts, like say a rock falling on a foot, also have impact. We need to consider the type of impact.

The type of impact - which was physical as far as you've told us! They did physical things in the physical world as a result of this impact.

No need to prove stuff you make up. If you had some science, or the bible to back you up, why, we might look at your claim. Silly as it may sound.

Exactly. No need to disprove silly stuff people make up. You've made up silly stuff about spirits under mountains and on the moon - it's up to you to provide evidence. Come back when you've got some.

We have evidence. The kind of impacts on our lives that cause us to know the reality of spirits.

The impact was clearly physical. You are claiming it to be some kind of physical manifestation of something spiritual. Back that up or back off.

Blacks were not the only slaves. The slave era was all history, more or less! People in the bible were sold to slavery. Some boats used to be operated by slaves. Native North Americans had slaves. It isn't about right or wrong. Many people that believe in spirits worship devils, and gods. The evidence is not a popularity contest, whether we acknowledge that many had slaves, or most believe in spirits!!

So why bring it up?

You have no idea what a spirit caused feeling is, unless you admit there are spirits! All you are doing is borrowing a word for your own belief system. That doesn't change the known reality of the spiritual.

Known reality? If it is known there must, by definition, be justification. Provide your justification.

The evidence the silly little PO imaginary razor demands, is physical type evidences. That cannot apply to spirits, they are not natural. Science, and that razor only apply to the natural.

No, Ockham's razor demands any kind of good evidence possible. I don't care whether it's physical or not as long as it's good evidence that can't be explained by something else - since that's what Ockham's razor is all about.

You don't know that.

I know it as surely as you know there isn't an invisible elephant in your wardrobe!

Doesn't matter where they are MOST do believe in some form of spirits.

In that case, most people are wrong. So?

Same with quoting from your so called science myth books. So? At least the bible is proven 6 ways from Sunday. Prophesies, answered prayers, humans witnessed to rise from the dead, after DAYS, miracles, deliverance from addictions, angelic protection, etc etc.

If you actually had verifiable evidence of all of these things then you'd be getting somewhere. But we're supposed to take it all on trust - tough cookies, mate.

 

[FishFace]

If you say we do, show us.

He's already shown you the data. It's your task to explain it. This should be just as funny as your attempts at explaining varves by saying "different past process dunnit!"
So go on - explain why we get a P-wave shadow zone if the interior of the earth doesn't refract P-waves as thaumaturgy showed you. (And as every high school geography student will know! Seriously, this stuff is for 14 year olds!)
Explain why we also get an S-wave shadow at the opposite side of the earth if the centre of the earth is a solid.

The raw data is the length of time between the earthquake at the top, and one of those waves popping out at the other side. Now, ignore the paths the diagram shows the waves as taking. I want you to draw a new diagram showing what happens to the P waves between when they go in, and when they come out. I want you to explain why diagram is correct and why it produces a shadow zone as well as increased density of output after the shadow zone.

This is how science works dad. If you don't like the existing explanation, you have to give a better one, or a valid, positive reason of why the current explanation is wrong - not just why you doubt it.

I can't imagine that you'll do any of this - you can't. That's because the existing explanation is almost certainly correct and you don't have the will, capacity or knowledge to create a better one. You can claim you don't know what happens inside the earth, oh sure. But we know quite well thanks very much. Your silly doubts mean nothing when faced with the raw explanatory power of the science.

 

[dlamberth]

If you say we do, show us.

.

It's been done. Now it's your turn.

.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That is easy they know nothing at all!

I'm sorry dad, did yo say something? Your "ignorance"-worship is not appreciated by those of us who are at least trying to understand the world.

Why don't you keep your ignorance to yourself.

Or do you want everyone around you to be as much in the dark as you want to be?

I think we all know who profits where ignorance is valued.

He has many names.

Not about the actual stuff down there. See, they do stuff like measure how much stress a rock can take.

Challenge: HOW WOULD YOU FIGURE OUT WHAT THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH IS LIKE?

Not just "guessy guessy" like you like to do, but tell us how YOU would understand the interior of the earth.

How do YOU figure out what's going on down there.

Or do you just love the "ignorance" and say "The Ignorance Allows Me to Claim Whatever I want!"

You see, Dad, we know why you love your ignorance so much. If the scientists actually DID drill right to the center of the earth and took pictures you'd probably be downhearted because it no longer left "ignornace" available to you.

So until you can let go of you love/lust for ignorance your commentary is not needed.

Please I beg you to go away so those of us who actually care about learning (flawed as it may or may not be) can actually achieve something.

"Many of the mechanical properties of a material can be extracted from a tensile test. In a tensile test, a sample is strained at a constant rate and the stress needed to maintain this strain rate is measured. The stress and strain can either be measured in terms of engineering stress and strain or true stress and strain. The elastic modulus, the ultimate tensile stress, the fracture stress, the modulus of toughness, and the modulus of resilience can all be determined from a tensile test."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensile_test

In other words, they play around on the surface, to determine the woulda should coulda stress levels in the assumed same state interior of the earth. Sandboxes are a wonderful thing!!

CHALLENGE #2: HOW WOULD YOU MEASURE TENSILE STRENGTH?

Since you are so quick to judge others on their methods as "playing around" with stuff, tell us how YOU would measure tensile strength.

[BIBLE]Matthew 7:3[/BIBLE]

Hey, might as well get a ouigi board! The surface guessing of the geo POist will be no better. How could it be??

How would YOU conduct geophysical analyses?

[BIBLE]Matthew 7:3[/BIBLE]

I agree. How little man knows.

You're a man. How do you know?

 

[atomweaver]

We have evidence. The kind of impacts on our lives that cause us to know the reality of spirits.
[short snip]
You have no idea what a spirit caused feeling is, unless you admit there are spirits!

... you have created a "chicken and egg" problem for yourself, dad. (i.e. "evidence of impact on life" is what causes you to know the reality of spirits, but you cannot experience such until after you believe in spirits.) Please, resolve that.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Interesting, just found the following link.

http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth/notes/seismology/seismo_interior/seismo_interior.html

Some interesting aspects.

Velocity of p-waves:

Velocity of s-waves:

(where K = bulk modulus and u=shear modulus, and rho=density)

since S-waves cannot travel through a liquid (shear waves don't), it is not dependent upon K, but only mu. Therefore s-waves velocity will be greater than p-wave velocity.

When looking at refraction we also have incidents where there is some reflection that occurs at the boundaries.

And in keeping with accoustic impedence ideas:

Apparently from this we can even predict the phase of the returning wave as a function of many of these variables!

So now we know even more about the nature of the interfaces!

Overall I like this graphic. I think it shows an excellent summary.

What I find interesting about critics of such analyses is that many of the exact same physical effects are analogous to the actions of LIGHT.

So if a critic, we'll call him "Mr. D" says we must "see" what is in the interior of the earth, then it must be up to him to tell us why THAT data would be superior to this data.

In a very real sense we are seeing into the earth just as effectively as a bat "sees" an insect in pitch black.

I'm still not wholly sure how the various moduli are measured, but we certainly do have a lot of information around this.