My BC Challenge

[Justatruthseeker]

Ah, they do know but have conspired to keep it a secret, you should have said. I take it that this is an admission that you can't find an authoritive source that agrees with you regarding the age of the Earth?

Nobody brought up a conspiracy but you.

It’s like evolutionists watching finches mate in front of their eyes, then not applying their own definition of subspecies. So lost are they, they simply can’t see their own hypocrisy.

No it's nothing like that, one could be demonstrated and proven by mathematics, the other is an arbitrary and convenient naming system.

That clocks slow in moving frames has indeed been demonstrated, and proven by mathematics. There is nothing arbitrary in the fact that finches mate right in front of their noses.

The only similarity is that you have convinced yourself that you are the ultimate authority on each subject and stubbornly refuse to take correction.

You have yet to prove clocks don’t slow in moving frames. In fact have agreed. So I should ignore the earth is in an accelerating frame because you do?

No I'm not, I'm suggesting that your applying it wrong. If you can't even grasp that simple fact I'm not too optimistic about your understanding of advanced physics.

You have yet to show how I am applying it wrong, since Relativity demands it be applied to all accelerating frames, of which the earth is one.

Of course, I won't accept a layman's assertions that he knows better than the 20th century's leading physicists because it might cause me to question my beliefs, that must be it!

Right, the same ones that are mystified because observation doesn’t match their theory.....

Lazy physicists, when will they ever get around to it?

Good question, why don’t you ask them?

Here are their calculations, please show where they're wrong....

The young centre of the Earth - MAFIADOC.COM

Of course you won't be able to will you? Because your statement above betrays yet another misunderstanding of the topic at hand, do you know why?

Of course I WILL be able to.

As any real physicist understands, at the center of the earth all the mass is on the outside, pulling outwards, and cancels to zero. Half way to the core, only slightly more than half of the earths mass is pulling on you. Maybe the above video made for students will enlighten you. Gravitational force does not increase towards the center, it decreases.

Does your weight change as you move above or below Earth's surface? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

“So, what would happen to gravitational pull if you travelled below that the Earth's surface towards the centre? Would your weight in Newtons increase, along with the sensation of getting heavier?

No, quite the opposite, says Bell. As you go down below the Earth's surface, in a mine shaft for example, the force of gravity lessens. Weight and gravitational pull continue to decrease as you get closer to the centre of the Earth.

"Imagine you're standing on a series of balls getting smaller and smaller and smaller. With each one less gravitational force applies," she says.

"If you're right in the centre, if that were possible, and you've got the Earth surrounding you, then you're being pulled equally in all directions and the net effect is that they cancel out. There's no gravitational pull and you'd be weightless".”

You just demonstrated total lack of understanding of physics. Just as all your other claims demonstrate the same.

So just as the gravitational force decreases the further out away from the surface, speeding up clocks, increasing age, so does going below the surface decreases the force of gravity, speeding up clocks, increasing age.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Name one mistake they showed I made? You keep making this claim, but fail every time to back up your claim.

Pick pretty much any topic in this thread that you've posted on. There's quite a list, but I'll just throw genetics out there as a specific area you have made repeated mistakes, been corrected multiple times yet still insist on trotting out the same erroneous nonsense.

 

[Jimmy D]

As any real physicist understands, at the center of the earth all the mass is on the outside, pulling outwards, and cancels to zero. Half way to the core, only slightly more than half of the earths mass is pulling on you. Maybe the above video made for students will enlighten you. Gravitational force does not increase towards the center, it decreases.

I'm aware of that thanks, and as predicted you didn't understand your mistake.

I'm sure Dr Uggerhøj would appreciate it if you contacted him and pointed out that he is making school boy errors in his calculations though.

I suspect that you only read the short articles that you posted and not the actual paper showing the calculations. I suppose it's easier to maintain your sense of superiority from a position of ignorance though.

The young centre of the Earth - MAFIADOC.COM

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm aware of that thanks, and as predicted you didn't understand your mistake.

I'm sure Dr Uggerhøj would appreciate it if you contacted him and pointed out that he is making school boy errors in his calculations though.

He did, by calculating the mass of the earth as if it was in the center. This is only valid if one is on or above the surface as all mass is beneath you and leads through the center. A schoolboy error is that once one goes beneath the surface to continue to calculate as if all the mass is still beneath you.

You didn’t understand at all, otherwise you would have seen his error from the beginning.

I suspect that you only read the short articles that you posted and not the actual paper showing the calculations. I suppose it's easier to maintain your sense of superiority from a position of ignorance though.

The young centre of the Earth - MAFIADOC.COM

I read his paper, and as above, it starts with the flawed assumption of

1) that the mass resides in the center, and
2) that density increases with depth.
EDIT:
And 3) must we really talk about the silly notion of gravitational redshift below the surface when we all already agree the force of gravity lessens the further beneath it you go? It too would be greatest at the surface......

Even though you claim to understand that 1) is wrong and despite the evidence which disproves 2) continue to believe anyways.

But contemplate for awhile that once you go below the surface, say to 1/4 of the earth diameter, you now have gravitational force not pulling downwards continuing to increase with depth, but now also pulling upwards and sideways as well.

After you contemplate on this for a couple posts while you refuse to do so and dig yourself deeper into the hole you have already dug; I will present to you the geological evidence that supports my claim and disproves yours.

I’ve asked you before to contemplate, and every time you refuse and end up being shown to be in error. I am giving you this chance to contemplate on what force pulling in all directions would do to the density of rock, before I show with empericial evidence how the beliefs of geologists are flawed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Pick pretty much any topic in this thread that you've posted on. There's quite a list, but I'll just throw genetics out there as a specific area you have made repeated mistakes, been corrected multiple times yet still insist on trotting out the same erroneous nonsense.

Genetics? Oh you mean you’re false beliefs that over millions of years variation occurs, when I can see it in 26 weeks when a Mastiff mates with a Husky, or nine months when an Asian mates with an African? You mean genetics where the Husky remains Husky, the Mastiff remains Mastiff and neither evolve into the Chinook? Or do you mean genetics where the Asian remains Asian, the African remains African and neither evolve into the Afro-Asian? Or do you mean genetics where they watched those finches mate right in front of their noses producing fertile offspring and then ignored their own scientific definitions?

Definition of SUBSPECIES

“a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographical region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs.”

No, in your delusions of evolution in which you ignore observational evidence, one can imagine anything....

 

[Jimmy D]

But contemplate for awhile that once you go below the surface, say to 1/4 of the earth diameter, you now have gravitational force not pulling downwards continuing to increase with depth, but now also pulling upwards and sideways as well.

Surprisingly, they are aware of the gravitational force at the centre of a solid sphere!

Furthermore, arguments based on symmetry will convince most skeptics, including those from ’the general public’, that there is no gravitational force at the Earth center. Consequently, such an effect cannot be due to the force itself, but may instead be due to the ’accumulated action of gravity’ (a layman expression for the gravitational potential energy being the radial integral of the force).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Surprisingly, they are aware of the gravitational force at the centre of a solid sphere!

Furthermore, arguments based on symmetry will convince most skeptics, including those from ’the general public’, that there is no gravitational force at the Earth center. Consequently, such an effect cannot be due to the force itself, but may instead be due to the ’accumulated action of gravity’ (a layman expression for the gravitational potential energy being the radial integral of the force).

What gravitational potential energy?

Gravity can be ignored in SR and is not a force at all in GR. How do you even attempt to use force calculations for something that is not a force in GR? Contradiction after contradiction....

Are you know claiming that the possibility spacetime may be bent by mass sometime in the undefined future causes a potential energy, when spacetime does nothing on its own?

 

[Jimmy D]

What gravitational potential energy?


Gravity can be ignored in SR and is not a force at all in GR. How do you even attempt to use force calculations for something that is not a force in GR? Contradiction after contradiction....

Are you know claiming that the possibility spacetime may be bent by mass sometime in the undefined future causes a potential energy, when spacetime does nothing on its own?

No, I’m not, you’re quoting the paper not me.

Funnily enough my physics education finished in secondary school so I had to do some background reading to get my head around how they made these calculations and why.

If you bothered to do the same maybe you wouldn’t be so confused. Mind you, is amusing to see how you seem to think that you have a better understanding of physics than Richard Feynman, so do carry on.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Yeah, I know. The science is settled.

Actually, I was just having fun with the thread, though it does bring up a point:

How the Big Bang Theory Works

The so called Big Bang may not be accurate or fully accurate, but it is not a hoax. I know you said you were just kidding around, but I have seen some of your other posts and you think some of the other sciences are fake. So I thought I would point at the distinction of a hoax and something not being or not being entirely accurate.

 

[Almost there]

The so called Big Bang may not be accurate or fully accurate, but it is not a hoax. I know you said you were just kidding around, but I have seen some of your other posts and you think some of the other sciences are fake. So I thought I would point at the distinction of a hoax and something not being or not being entirely accurate.

I've just noticed that just as power corrupts, Politics corrupts. When science is left to be science, it is great. It's also not that complicated.

But when it is politicized, you can no longer trust the "consensus". This is true of evolution and "climate change", once called AGW. It's also becoming true with gender identification. When it wasn't politicized, there was a word for a man that thought he was a woman. It had to do with a brain defect. It still does, but you can't acknowledge that there is actually something mentally wrong with these people. It's become politicized. You can't trust the "scientists" any more.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I've just noticed that just as power corrupts, Politics corrupts. When science is left to be science, it is great. It's also not that complicated.

But when it is politicized, you can no longer trust the "consensus". This is true of evolution and "climate change", once called AGW. It's also becoming true with gender identification. When it wasn't politicized, there was a word for a man that thought he was a woman. It had to do with a brain defect. It still does, but you can't acknowledge that there is actually something mentally wrong with these people. It's become politicized. You can't trust the "scientists" any more.

Trust the politicians, then; see where that gets you.

 

[Almost there]

Trust the politicians, then; see where that gets you.

HA! I don't trust them to the point that six years ago I left my 46 year home, Seattle, for 32 acres in rural KY. It is a spectacular life style, and when (not if) the SHTF, I can self sustain there quite easily. It's not a guarantee, but it's certainly more of a fighting chance, and if it doesn't happen in my lifetime, it is a spectacularly peaceful and productively relaxing lifestyle.

I left the R party about 14 years ago. Politics is just something I like to watch for comic relief.

 

[Skreeper]

It still does, but you can't acknowledge that there is actually something mentally wrong with these people.

Transgender people do not have a brain defect. Let's imagine for a second we could perform brain transplants. If we take the brain of a female and put it in to a male body, what gender is that person?

 

[Almost there]

Transgender people do not have a brain defect.

Yes they do. There is actually a name for it. gender dysphoria. gender dysphoria - Google Search

If we take the brain of a female and put it in to a male body, what gender is that person?

A man with a female brain in it. But it's a hypothetical. We'll know what actually happens when we can actually do it. I'm not holding my breath.

If you have a Y cromosome, you are a man, regardless of what you "think" you are. On a side, but relevant point: You are not Napoleon, even if you think you are. He's dead, Jim.

This is not complicated. People are, for some unknown reason, trying to make it so.

 

[VirOptimus]

I've just noticed that just as power corrupts, Politics corrupts. When science is left to be science, it is great. It's also not that complicated.

But when it is politicized, you can no longer trust the "consensus". This is true of evolution and "climate change", once called AGW. It's also becoming true with gender identification. When it wasn't politicized, there was a word for a man that thought he was a woman. It had to do with a brain defect. It still does, but you can't acknowledge that there is actually something mentally wrong with these people. It's become politicized. You can't trust the "scientists" any more.

You dont understanding science or when its conclusion is against your beliefs does not make it ”politicized”, it just makes you wrong.

 

[Almost there]

You dont understanding science or when its conclusion is against your beliefs does not make it ”politicized”, it just makes you wrong.

You must be talking about someone else. I've not shared any views other than what I understand science to be. And as one Rocket Scientist acquaintance said, "even rocket science ain't rocket science". One of the reasons science is actually rather simple is that it is absolute, unlike psychology or religion. The questions all either have solid answers, or no answers at all.

Take gravity. We know what it does. It can't be denied. That is why it is called a "law". But it is also called a "theory", because we only speculate on how it actually works. Experiments can prove or disprove this or that (that is what science does), but we still don't know whether it pushes or pulls. We only theorize.

My take is that gravity could, in fact, be God, himself, actively holding it all together - until he lets go. But I can't prove it scientifically, so it is not science. But that's ok. It isn't meant to be. Religion is not science. Science is not Religion. You don't use science to prove spiritual things, and you don't use religion to prove scientific things. Science is about how. Religion is about why. The latter is the higher pursuit.

 

[VirOptimus]

You must be talking about someone else. I've not shared any views other than what I understand science to be. And as one Rocket Scientist acquaintance said, "even rocket science ain't rocket science". One of the reasons science is actually rather simple is that it is absolute, unlike psychology or religion. The questions all either have solid answers, or no answers at all.

Take gravity. We know what it does. It can't be denied. That is why it is called a "law". But it is also called a "theory", because we only speculate on how it actually works. Experiments can prove or disprove this or that (that is what science does), but we still don't know whether it pushes or pulls. We only theorize.

My take is that gravity could, in fact, be God, himself, actively holding it all together - until he lets go.

...

No, you really really dont understand even the basics.

 

[Almost there]

...

No, you really really dont understand even the basics.

In sales, that is what is known as a BFC (Big Fat Claim). It is a very useful tool if one backs it up. If not, they look like, well, they're sellin' something.

 

[VirOptimus]

In sales, that is what is known as a BFC (Big Fat Claim). It is a very useful tool if one backs it up. If not, they look like, well, they're sellin' something.

I’m not selling anything but everyone can read your posts. They prove my claims.

 

[Almost there]

I’m not selling anything but everyone can read your posts. They prove my claims.

I disagree. What's funny is that, when discussing science and the scientific method, I will include the dictionary definition of the word, "Science", and people will still argue I don't understand it.

Honestly, it's not complicated. It's just science and, truth be told, most of the actual, in the trenches activities involved in science are incredibly boring.