Robittybob1 Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) ... No, remember the context of the thread. I reject the slowing of the earth and displacement of the moon from this effect, since the data show that the angular momentum transfer is already accounted for, something you've already conceded. The angular momentum was shown to be conserved; that is all. It was not demonstrated that the tidal bulge on the surface accounted for 100% of the quantity. We had already discussed this. Since you referred to the rules of the Speculation section of the forum I have noted that I don't have to provide full evidence but just a testable hypothesis and it is clear that is what I have done. At no time have I refused to discuss the idea, but you can't expect me to have all the answers. The idea is testable and we could try and work out how to test it. I don't have to falsify my own hypothesis, it just has to be falsifiable, which it is. No actual physics here. You point to a few concepts, but have presented no calculations, nor demonstrated that any effect that might be present is not already accounted for already. What's the change in flow rate? How is the field affected by this? Again, there's no actual physics being done here. What torque? How big is it? Why is a torque required to hold the core in place? ..... The average change in flow rate was calculated previously and it was inversely proportional to the port sizes for the whole of the OC material had to go through both ports every full rotation. Whether there were regions of higher than average flows that would have to be made on analysis of a model of the situation. I'm not making predictions regarding this. Using the right hand rule a current past the IC would cause a magnetic field in the Inner Core, the polarity would depend on the net average charge of the OC molten metal. I think the word "torque" is the right word for although the principle displacement is due to gravitational forces the IC ends up blocking the flow of the OC material past it and hence there is drag which I speculate will mean the IC is longer in a direct in line arrangement but pushed forward of the Earth -Moon gravitational center line so like the tidal bulge it will be forward and hence tidally accelerating the Moon as well. Edited March 11, 2015 by Robittybob1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 The angular momentum was shown to be conserved; that is all. It was not demonstrated that the tidal bulge on the surface accounted for 100% of the quantity. We had already discussed this. Yes it was demonstrated. The change in rotation rate of the earth accounts for the angular momentum transferred to the moon. There's nothing left for the core to contribute. Your absurd objection was that the change in rotation rate was not measurement of the surface rotation. Since you referred to the rules of the Speculation section of the forum I have noted that I don't have to provide full evidence but just a testable hypothesis and it is clear that is what I have done. At no time have I refused to discuss the idea, but you can't expect me to have all the answers. The idea is testable and we could try and work out how to test it. I don't have to falsify my own hypothesis, it just has to be falsifiable, which it is. How is it testable? How is it falsifiable? I don't see a single quantifiable prediction. The average change in flow rate was calculated previously and it was inversely proportional to the port sizes for the whole of the OC material had to go through both ports every full rotation. Whether there were regions of higher than average flows that would have to be made on analysis of a model of the situation. I'm not making predictions regarding this. Using the right hand rule a current past the IC would cause a magnetic field in the Inner Core, the polarity would depend on the net average charge of the OC molten metal. Calculated? Where? I see a calculation of "port" sizes, but no calculation of flow rates or anything beyond that. Being able to calculate an area is not physics. I think the word "torque" is the right word for although the principle displacement is due to gravitational forces the IC ends up blocking the flow of the OC material past it and hence there is drag which I speculate will mean the IC is longer in a direct in line arrangement but pushed forward of the Earth -Moon gravitational center line so like the tidal bulge it will be forward and hence tidally accelerating the Moon as well. You're speculating on an ArXiv paper by a single author who gives no affiliation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted March 11, 2015 Author Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Yes it was demonstrated. The change in rotation rate of the earth accounts for the angular momentum transferred to the moon. There's nothing left for the core to contribute. Your absurd objection was that the change in rotation rate was not measurement of the surface rotation. The Earth includes the Inner and Outer Cores so my concept is that all parts are capable of contributing to the transfer of angular momentum to the Moon. How you have been able to separate the contributions has not been demonstrated. Look, as far as what you were on about when you were talking about the surface rotation wasn't clear. So I deny that I made any absurd objections, all I was trying to say was the rotational speed of the Earth (the day length measurement) could be measured from any point of view. (So we were probably talking about different things actually.) .... How is it testable? How is it falsifiable? I don't see a single quantifiable prediction. Calculated? Where? I see a calculation of "port" sizes, but no calculation of flow rates or anything beyond that. Being able to calculate an area is not physics. You're speculating on an ArXiv paper by a single author who gives no affiliation. Those sort of questions require thought. Does the Inner Core have a magnetic field, and where could it be coming from if it does? There's a good question. In my hypothesis the IC is being magnetised by the more rapid flow of molten metal past one side of the IC (but over a whole day that "side" completes the entire circumference of the IC) As I said if you have to put the whole volume of the OC through two different sized ports, the flow rate through the smaller port compared to the larger port would be inversely proportional to the ratio of port sizes. We know the volume and the size of the port and the period so the average flow rate should be able to be calculated from that. That paper backed up an idea I had of the IC. I thought it should be tidally displaced, so I searched the internet for information on that topic and found that paper, but I was initially surprised by the amount of displacement he (Martin Wolf) had calculated. I ran the figure past a person with a PhD in Physics and he thought that was only a minor displacement and not improbable. In this thread we worked out how much that displacement would alter the ratio of port sizes, the 0.77% figure. Granted it is rather simple physics but it still is physics. Edited March 11, 2015 by Robittybob1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 ! Moderator Note We're six pages in and you still have made no attempt to provide evidence or show any sort of model. Of course it requires thought! Thought you should have put into it before making your claims, perhaps? In any case, it was made abundantly clear that you needed to provide these things and since you still haven't, this thread is closed and you are not permitted to reopen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts