Cold Core Model of Earth's Structure

[modest]

Originally Posted by Cold-co

Now, I could have easily looked at my schematic of forces diagram and concluded that horizontal vectors cancel out, as they do when using calculus, because calculus employes directional vectors; but directional vectors is not the nature of gravity, it is a bidirectional force and a bidirectional force cannot be cancelled by another bidirectional force, only matched in strength.

Like Pyrotex, I'm afraid I don't understand this. Acceleration is change in velocity. Velocity is a vector which means it can either change in magnitude or direction. Your table of data provides two different accelerations for one point. I don't know how to interpret that, and I'm very curious to find out how.

To help me interpret the data you could explain what horizontal acceleration is. I understand vertical acceleration due to gravity. On the surface of the earth if I drop something in a vacuum it will change velocity at 9.8 meters per second squared toward the center of the earth. If I give a straightforward interpretation of your data it seems I should be expecting an object to change velocity when dropped at 10.0604 m/s^2 in the horizontal direction. I doubt you mean for it to be taken that way because that would not agree with observation. So, I'm curious to understand what "horizontal acceleration" means.

Originally Posted by Cold-co

Charlie O posted a link to my PowerPoint presentation, which explains the reasoning behind my concern.

I do not have power point installed at the moment.

Originally Posted by Cold-co

Modest: I know you would like to be rid of Charlie O and me, but we are talking earth science here. so I think this is where we belong.

After a good deal of effort engaging both you and Charlie in a respectful manner it's difficult to imagine how you came to the conclusion that I would like to 'be rid of you'. Your topic has now been moved into its own thread, here. The staff feels that discussion on your model is better-served having its own thread with its own topic. This will hopefully garner more useful responses. And, I assure you, has nothing to do with 'being rid of you'.

~modest

[stereologist]

I made a PDF and posted it here:

part0.pdf

[modest]

Thank you Stereologist. I look forward to looking at it

~modest

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by stereologist

I made a PDF and posted it here:

part0.pdf

Erhm...well..ahhh, I think we have another example of anti-science here wherein one starts with a preconception and makes up something to fit it, rather than look at the evidence and draw the conclusions afterward.

I'll leave out of it though except to quote from the horse's mouth now that we can get a look in there.

However, his cold-core model failed to meet the low moment of inertia needed to keep Earth from flattening.
This impediment bothered him, because the workings of a condensed cold-core model matched well events reported by paleontologists, archaeologists, geologists, and historians. They also matched well events reported in the Bible, including future events foretold by the prophets. Further, they brought reason to the Gloabal Warming debate by inytroducing a natural heat pump cycle of Ice Ages and warming periods.
Fortunately he realized the packing effect of gravity had never been calculated. ...

Something is getting packed here, but it ain't gravity.

[Pyrotex]

Packing gravity? Turtle, me lad, I think you're on the trail of something. I've got you're back!

[stereologist]

I'm sorry but all of the h's cancel out. These are the h's in the diagram. Then on p6 you end up with doubling, but say "while calculating ... an interesting relationship popped up." Could you show us the math so that we can point out the mistake?

Appreciate it

[Cold-co]

To All:
Modest: Thank you for providing a new thread. I realize the subject is a major departure from the purpose of earth science.
Stereologist atal: If you are interested in reviewing the spreadsheets I used to calculate the forces of gravity at descending depths within the earth, I will gladly mail you a CD, at no charge. Just send your snail mail address to my email address that Charlie O will provide, I don't have the number of posts needed to submit an email address.
When I did the calculations I selected a diameter for use in calculating conditions at descending depths. Once a diameter is selected the rest of the earth becomes nothing more than a bunch of gram masses surrounding that diameter. It is a practice used to solve engineering problems and is the exact same practice employed by Newton.
For those of you who are confused by the term "bidirectional" I use it to indicate the vector has two arrowheads one at each end of the line. It is similar to the pull produced by a rubber strand. My horizontal gravitational pull occurs in a 360 degree plane. It is similar to the restorative pull in the skin of a rubber balloon, which in a schematic pulls in both directions in a lateral plane. That is why you cannot feel its effect. But as one progresses into the earth the horizontal pull quickly becomes the dominant force. I think it is the force that holds cloud fragments and planetary bodies together.

[CharlieO]

xtainson@juno.com

[Boerseun]

I'm sitting behind my desk.

I'm being gravitationally attracted by the Earth, the moon, the sun, Jupiter, Saturn, and even the fat guy next door.

The gravitational attraction that manifests in me being pulled straight to the centre of the Earth, is merely the sum total of all the gravity sources in the entire universe. Some are more distant, though.

There are no "horizontal" gravitational forces - there is merely "gravity", which works in all directions.

Like Pyro explained, as you approach the center of the Earth, you might as well ignore the sphere of Earth above you at any given depth, because it all cancels out. You will merely experience the gravitational pull of a shrinking sphere below your feet as you descend.

Gravity working in all directions is an obvious given. Stand on the beach and look at the tides, for instance.

So we don't need any mysterious new force to account for cloud fragments and planetary bodies. The "gravity" experienced by any individual particle in any given system, is merely the sum total of the vectors of gravitational pull of all bodies in the system.

[Cold-co]

Boerseum:
Thank you, you have made my point when you say; "There are no "horizontal" gravitational forces - there is merely "gravity", which works in all directions."
Since horizontally is a direction then there must be horizontal gravitational attraction.

Charlie O has posted my email address. If you are interested in reviewing the mathematics behind my claim that all orbs experience horizontal gravitational attraction just email your snail mail address. I'll mail you a copy of my trigonometric calculations at no cost to you.