@TheBrightWay "in English: islam(dash)guide(dot)com/ch1(dash)1(dash)b(dot) h t m"
RE
That page just grabs at the visual description of "roots/pegs". Says science didn't discover this until 19th century, but Quran probably just got it's ideas from earlier religions (Job 28:9, Rig Veda B10 H44:8).
Most of the references are from a book written specifically to convince you of miracles in the Quran, and mostly appear to refer to the authors own impressions, not outside sources.
@kawishosa93 obviously..they state the common facts that was understood by desert dwellers at that time..god doesnt have tor WRITE a text to fakin communicate with humans..who could do better. GOD is just a MYTH..any god.. its high time we learn that n move on..this world would be much much much bettter place without relgions
continued.. such imbalance by changing mass distribution on the Earth, and unescapably moved the center of mass litlle further from Earth's rotation axis.
But you did'nt show (as i asked you) mountains -if they are "tire-wheight"-like- how they were put in the right place, whereas continents locations often changed in Earth's history and many mountains were raised and eroded, and geologists didn't notice any violent shaking at those epochs.
@silveren777 "except maybe when our planet were the targets of celestial bodies."
Nope. However, you have to make one fact clear mountains are there and earth is balanced. Everything you say about world not changing its rotational axis fast, proves the claim that mountains balance the earth. If you want to refute this explanation, remove the mountains and show everyone that it does not change anything in world rotation. And Good luck with that since even the galciers effect this rotation.
@silveren777 "But you did'nt show (as i asked you)"
How do you mean? I explained to you this. ROTATIONAL INERTIA. What is it you don;t understand about this?
"Earth's history and many mountains were raised and eroded, and geologists didn't notice any violent shaking at those epochs."
Actually they did. and they estimate that it happened three or four times in the world history. However it is because of the mountain formations these changes limited to that less many. >>
@silveren777 "Stupid guy, it's not unlikely to do such little mistakes when you do something else at the same time."
IDIOT first I have to know that you made a mistake if you quote me some ayah numbers I will never know you are making a mistake by looking at the numbers.
Also, it is not unlikely for you to do such a mistake since you live in a dllusion.
@silveren777 "Stupid guy, it's not unlikely to do such little mistakes when you do something else at the same time."
IDIOT I am doing something else too. So if you are not aware of making mistakes, by simply looking at numbers you refer as ayah numbers how would I know you mean another surah? As I said stop accusing others for your mistakes. You are an idiot and noone else repsonsible from this.
@silveren777 OK here is the issue if we lift mountains, until the new ones form to balance the world will wobble, then the mountains will function the same way. Now if you remove too much land mass though things might change drastically.
So again what is it that you don't agree with the explanation of Ibn Katheer.
A note; i already explained to you about how Ibn Katheers comments could be understood. Stop making imaginary arguments in my place. Do you want to be like me? :)
This requires to prove that mountains when they form are placed exactly in the places required to ajust Earth's moment of inertia to its rotation axis...
Unlike a tire, Earth hasn't any physical axle which impose what the earth must rotate around, and which could, due to imperfect alignement, shift the axis from wheel center of mass, so our planet is able to balance itself after some epochs in order to rotate around its axis of inertia.
@silveren777 "This requires to prove that mountains when they form are placed exactly in the places required to ajust Earth's moment of inertia to its rotation axis..."
Which also means that it's required to be DISPROVEN as well. If you think you can be objective and get rid of your bias against Islam you can even try to be scientific.
@silveren777 "Unlike a tire, Earth hasn't any physical axle which impose what the earth must rotate around,"
Firs digest the idea of rotational inertia then we can talk about the axial diffrences in the rotation of earths layers. Where ever ther ies rotation, there is an axis, physical or not. where ever there is a rotational movement there is a rotational inertia.
@silveren777 3-) "and which could, due to imperfect alignement, shift the axis from wheel center of mass"
There is no such thing as imperfect alignment.
"so our planet is able to balance itself after some epochs in order to rotate around its axis of inertia."
This is false. Depending on what you are trying to say, lacks a lot at best. The theory is earth's core and the crust were not co axial at first and in time they reached a balance, >>
Because of this earth tends to wobble more than turning on a real axis, which makes the balancing function of the mountains even more significant.
"However mountains mass is few compared to whole Earth's to provoke a human time-scale shaking"
This is an unsupported claim. If you know this for a fact it is alone enough to refute the claim about the funtions of the mountain. However you don't know this for a fact. ??
"This is an unsupported claim" and in "This is false"
Do such a trivial things need evidence? just look in the example of supervolcano.
"You are aware that you're confirming the function of the mountains as balancer due to world's rotation?"
Not at all, the relevant subject invokes nowhere the presence of mountains as responsible for the return to balance, ironically it's, as you saw, a mountain that provoked such imbalance.
@silveren777 "Not at all, the relevant subject invokes nowhere the presence of mountains as responsible for the return to balance"
Yes at all. the issue is there was no need to return to a balance because of the mountains, Because of the mountains the axial change effects takes millions of years. If there weren't mountains the axials shift would have occured faster.
>>
ironically it's, as you saw, a mountain that provoked such imbalance."
"If there weren't mountains the axials shift would have occured faster."
proofs?
"How do you mean? I explained to you this. ROTATIONAL INERTIA. What is it you don;t understand about this?"
You didn't explain anything. the fact that mountains masses (and former ones) are/were in the right places to permit balancing sounds too IMPROBABLE, no wonder this requires a more elaborated explanation.
The stable earth is the proof you gave many yourself with arguments the slow changes in the rotational axis of th earth. where are your disproofs and refutations?
"You didn't explain anything. the fact that mountains masses (and former ones) are/were in the right places to permit balancing sounds too IMPROBABLE, no wonder this requires a more elaborated explanation"
To the contrary souther hemipsphere less mountains due to less land mass. This alone is enough. >>
"The stable earth is the proof you gave many yourself with arguments the slow changes in the rotational axis of th earth. where are your disproofs and refutations?"
Mere logic tells you that from what i quoted The Earth slowly tilted just prove the Earth slowly tilted.
Concluding from this that mountains are the cause of this stability is a non-sequitur and thus requires a justification.
@silveren777 "Concluding from this that mountains are the cause of this stability is a non-sequitur and thus requires a justification"
Non-sequitur? The conclusion does not follow what? World is stable thus the argument is satsified. you are non-sequitur. Also, this is a hypthesis, if the word is stable, then it is confirmed with the arguments you are bringing up. You should bring an alternative hypothesis and show us that your agurments support that one instead of this one. >>
Yes it's a non-sequitur. That only proves the Earth is stable and can restore its balance. By what? it doesn't precise it's due to mountains. So it's up to you to prove your hypothesis, not to me to prove you wrong.
"Now, this is non-sequitur and irrelevant"
Not at all! Since balancers mustn't placed only according to continents position.
"That only proves the Earth is stable and can restore its balance. By what?"
BY THE PRINCIPALS OF THE PHYSICAL LAW KNOWN AS CONSERVATION OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM via the adjustments on its ROTATIONAL INERTIA mainly determined by the mountain formations.
Do you really know the meaning of non-sequitur at all.
@silveren777 "Mere logic tells you that from what i quoted The Earth slowly tilted just prove the Earth slowly tilted."
NO. The events you are bringing to disprove the hypothesis are actually proving it. Mere logic tells me somethings else due to such remakrs of yours.
"The Earth isn't just land mass"
Now, this is non-sequitur and irrelevant. Then I also should speak about where a mountains tarts and it ends etc. A high plateau could well be considerd as amountain etc. >>
"To the contrary souther hemipsphere less mountains due to less land mass. This alone is enough"
The Earth isn't just land mass, mass distriubtion on our planet includes anything that has a mass, so the ocean, the oceanic crust, as well.Enough? i don't think so, when you want to balance car tires, you have to bring a more complete analysis, before ensuring the tire wieght are well placed.
not to mention mountains and continents were at different place millions years ago.
@silveren777 "Do such a trivial things need evidence? just look in the example of supervolcano."
OK for you to make a comparison. Himalayas contain ~12,000 km3 of fresh water. This is just the amount of water, not the land mass. The largest supervolcane moved ~ 5000 km3. In comparison to the all mountain formations mass on earth the dramatic change you assume that should happen, won't happen at all. Earth is balanced with mountains quite steadily.
not to mention volume in itself is useless if there are no precision about density nor the area the mass is spreading over; what's relevant for the supervolcano, in the case of true polar wander, is its weight on the Earth, not the volume of its ejected material.
"Actually they did. and they estimate that it happened three or four times in the world history"
Indeed, but those shifts were not violent in the way i implied: human time-scale shaking.
@silveren777 "Indeed, but those shifts were not violent in the way i implied: human time-scale shaking."
That is the whole idea. Regardless the nature of those shakes they were balanced by the mountains.
You are proving the function of the mountains with your own words, yet because you thinks like "Quran and Islam can;t be right, they must not be right." you keep on refuting your own arguments, but you don't want to admit it.
Rather, my rejection of mountains as tire-weight isn't motivated by a blind dismissal of Quran, but by lack of evidence.
Moreover, Earth isn't like your tire in many aspect (from mechanical viewpoint), it's much larger (more inertia), heavier and spins at a lower angular speed compared to a tire, as result the center of mass displacement by mass on the surface (which are tiny in comparison) is very slight and Earth's large inertia would take a long time to make our planet tilt.
@silveren777 "Rather, my rejection of mountains as tire-weight isn't motivated by a blind dismissal of Quran, but by lack of evidence."
No evidence is right there, you keep on speaking about it. If you are sincere, you should dismiss that earth has a balanced rotational movement due to lack of existing scientific explanation for it. you are applying double standard. After all the rotational movement and the land mass relation is proven already. Your denial is due to your bias towards Islam.
@silveren777 "Moreover, Earth isn't like your tire in many aspect (from mechanical viewpoint)"
Indeed, but the principals of rotational inertia does not change, the tire example is given to explain this fact. However, for those who can;t even understand an example, it is difficult to dicuss the relating aspects of the event to that example.
Fortunately rotational inertia principle doesn't change! But it's clear both system (car tires, Earth) wouldn't response in the same way, in the same time lapse.
"you don't want to mention that the rotation of the earth were not co axial then as well."
According to true polar wander theory, it was in epoch when there weren't a problem of mass distribution, and when there weren't supercontinent.
@silveren777 "So, it's up to you to prove your hypothesis, not to me to prove you wrong."
I am giving the supporting arguments. However you are trying reject them without bringing explanations to your rejections.
"Not at all! Since balancers mustn't placed only according to continents position."
Huh? Then where are you gonna place balancers on the oceans? Are you planing to create galcier ice around the equator or something? We are talking about a real, existing object; EARTH. >
"Then where are you gonna place balancers on the oceans? Are you planing to create galcier ice around the equator or something? We are talking about a real, existing object"
Well, there is also irregularities in oceanic crust, so they need to be compensed as well.
"I am giving the supporting arguments.However you are trying reject them without bringing explanations to your rejections."
Without any explanations? That's an overstatement...
@silveren777 "Well, there is also irregularities in oceanic crust, so they need to be compensed as well."
Do you have even and idea of what rotational inertia is all about? The deeper the oceans go the higher the land mass will rise if you keep the ratio of the land water the same.
"Without any explanations? That's an overstatement..."
With the explanation (conservation of angular momentum etc, as well as the polar shift theories relation and all) this is speaking lies.
@silveren777 "Fortunately rotational inertia principle doesn't change! But it's clear both system (car tires, Earth) wouldn't response in the same way, in the same time lapse."
Then explain how they repsonse differently so that we should know.
"According to true polar wander theory, it was in epoch when there weren't a problem of mass distribution, and when there weren't supercontinent."
Polar wander theory, tries to explain the polar shift, it does not try to explain Inertia of earth>
@silveren777 "it's much larger (more inertia), heavier and spins at a lower angular speed compared to a tire, as result the center of mass displacement by mass on the surface (which are tiny in comparison) is very slight and Earth's large inertia would take a long time to make our planet tilt."
This is true, but you also miss the fact that largets geological formations occur on smaller planets mars has deeper canyons than earth etc,>
@silveren777 So, the size of the earth still allows the crust to work as balancing factor. This alone is more than enough to support the idea that mountains function as balancing weights.
"not to mention mountains and continents were at different place millions years ago."
Well, of course, you don't want to mention that the rotation of the earth were not co axial then as well. Slowly with the balancing act of the mountains and irregularities of the crust it is almost co axial now.
@silveren777 So, regardless, your bias against Islam is forcing you to speak false(with remarks such as non-sequitur irrelevantly). non-scientific(concluding about the Quran's claim as scientific while you fail to have a factual scientific explanation). More, you force yourself to deny logical arguments for the sake of refuting and contradicting yourself.
As you see, your charge still fails. Instead of succeding in proving your case, you baselessly compare Earth with tires as if they have the same response, without knowing since the Earth isn't fixed on a rigid axle,nothing stop it from restoring itself its balance with the force of rotation.
@silveren777 > However the theories to explain polar shift of the earth complies with the explanations of the continetal moevemnts due rotational inertia of the Earth.
Already done. But normally you must prove the analogy is correct (since it's you that claimed it), otherwise there would be infinite things that are true if we don't refute them.
"You refute your own argument."
or course! nobodoy could doubt spinning bodies having different properties would react exactly same way, (this what car tire analogy supposes)...
No you didn't. You tried make a false argument over a fixed axis, which explained a difference, But the reason of being baseless you didn't so please explain it. Do it again if you did won't hurt your brain.
"But normally you must prove the analogy is correct (since it's you that claimed it),"
LOL. A correct analogy. That's a nice one. However, to apply the principals of physics the analogy is correct. It your responsibilty to prove the analogy as "false."
"However, to apply the principals of physics the analogy is correct. It your responsibilty to prove the analogy as "false." "
Not when the compared object have different properties, such as angular velocity, diameter, mass , and so on... you can't expect they will react the same way to perturbations.
@silveren777 "Not when the compared object have different properties, such as angular velocity, diameter, mass , and so on... you can't expect they will react the same way to perturbations."
Why not? It is rotating and it needs to be balanced, Should I respect that earth should react outside the principals of physics of totating bodies? You have to realize that the axis of rotation always passes thourgh the center of mass, and that is how you determine the wobble, not by a physical shaft.
@silveren777 "When i said "not reacting the same way", i meant their umbalance won't be sensitive as we could feel the umbalance of a tire."
Here we go again, I mean this I mean that.
Well, OK, How do you determine the sensitivity? There is the rotational axis and there is the distance from the axis. What effects this sensitivityto make these two rotations different? You add subtract weight and you redistribute weight, you manipulate the distance from the axis, >>
i didn't determine for it a different meaning at first.
Regarding the second sentence, the sensitivity of the wobble (whether umbalance is noticieable to human or not) is determined by how resistant to change to its motion is the spinning body is (due to its mass) and how far the center of mass is displaced.
@silveren777 "i didn't determine for it a different meaning at first."
?? What are you talking about? Words are there to express what you want to communicate. misunderstanding can occur, however if you experience the same pattern over and over again, either you are not capable of expressing yourself clearly or you are not clear in what you want to communicate at all.
"So, don't wonder why my english isn't so perfect and so clear, but i'm trying to improve this as much as i can."
I am not wondering at all, No need to be offended I only corrected your so that you should improve faster. Only if you could imporve in understanding the issue at hand as well.
@silveren777 "Regarding the second sentence, the sensitivity of the wobble (whether umbalance is noticieable to human or not) is determined by how resistant to change to its motion is the spinning body is (due to its mass) and how far the center of mass is displaced."
No. youare still not clear about the sensitivity. Let's say that 10 kg sphere is less sensitive to 10 grams of change in its mass than 1000 kg sphere with 1000grams with the same radius?
@silveren777 "or course! nobodoy could doubt spinning bodies having different properties would react exactly same way, (this what car tire analogy supposes)..."
Here is analogy 101; Every rotation has an axis. Every object that rotates around an axis will wobble if the weight distrubution is non-homogenous. Every wobble is balanced by adding and subtracting weight. This process adding and subtracting, is more effective the farther from the axis.>>
yes, but a free spinning body can, after some time, ajust itself to rotate around its own center of mass due to the force of body rotation (see TPW article at physorg for instance), because the axis is not imposed by a fixed material axle.
And wobble is different if the spinning body is larger and heavier (thus large resistance to change in motion) and has a low speed, and that mass distribution is little compared to the mass of the whole body.
@silveren777 "yes, but a free spinning body can, after some time, ajust itself to rotate around its own center of mass due to the force of body rotation (see TPW article at physorg for instance), because the axis is not imposed by a fixed material axle."
No, no. The principal does not change, instead of adding or aubtracting weights you, then shift the weight distribution within the object, THAT WHICH CONFIRMS THE BALANCING FUNCTION OF THE MOUNTAINS.
"The principal does not change, instead of adding or aubtracting weights you, then shift the weight distribution within the object"
Sure! but the issue is that how is mass umbalanced distribution on the surface compared to Earth's mass? how would be the resulant wobble on the Earth?
@silveren777 "And wobble is different if the spinning body is larger and heavier (thus large resistance to change in motion) and has a low speed, and that mass distribution is little compared to the mass of the whole body."
Then, it is not the rotational inertia brings the object to a balance via shifting the weight within. So, how is this object come to a balance then?
However mountains mass is few compared to whole Earth's to provoke a human time-scale shaking, at worst their removal could umbalance it on geological time-scale, just like when a supervolcano (about 800 million years ago) was forming in an "umbalancing" place probably caused the Earth to tilt (over millions of years) until the latter managed to place the mass in such a way to restore a balanced mass distribution.
@silveren777 5-) "at worst their removal could umbalance it on geological time-scale"
So, at worst, mountains balance the earth.
"just like when a supervolcano (about 800 million years ago) was forming in an "umbalancing" place probably caused the Earth to tilt (over millions of years) until the latter managed to place the mass in such a way to restore a balanced mass distribution."
You are aware that you're confirming the function of the mountains as balancer due to world's rotation?
"True polar wander, or the motion of the solid Earth with respect to a fixed spin axis that causes the spin axis to lie over a new geographic position, does occur. This is because of changes in mass distribution throughout the Earth that modify its moment of inertia tensor. The Earth consistently readjusts its orientation with respect to its spin axis such that its spin axis is parallel to the axis about which it has its greatest moment of inertia." >>
@silveren777 8-) "This readjustment is very slow. In 2001, historical evidence for true polar wander was found in paleomagnetic data from granitic rocks from across North America. The data from these rocks conflict with the hypothesis of a cataclysmic true polar wander event."
Thus the balancing function of the mountains confirmed by science.
"True polar wander can be caused by several mechanisms of redistributing mass and changing the moment of inertia tensor of the Earth:
1-) Glacial cycles: redistribution of ice and water masses, and resultant deformation of the crust, changes the mass distribution around the Earth. (if Glacial mass is enough for this shift mountain mass must be more than enough to do the same).
@silveren777 2-) Perturbations of the topography of the core-mantle boundary, perhaps induced by differential core rotation and shift of its axial rotation vector, leading to CMB mass redistributions.
3-) Mass redistributions in the mantle.
The orientation of the rotational axis itself could be changed by high-velocity impact of a massive asteroid or comet (It is a fact that therfe are many asteoids out there and many hit the earth)" (Paranthesis are mine).
@silveren777 8-) So, you set sail to disprove that earth doesn't function to balance the earth yet you supported this. However do you really admit this is another story.
it's saying that the Mountains prevents the plates from moving soo frequently and so many times that we'd actualyl experience the movements as we stand on the Earth today. The mountains stabilzies these plates, where they meet, otherwise they're like lillies in an ocean.
@silveren777 4-) You not only don't know the functions of the mountains but you also don;t know whay the fault linbes move as well. You have a theory and Quran has a theory (explanation). If you are so afraid that the Quran might be telling the truth and you have to admit it, mingling with you science to disprove the Quran, is the determining factor for your ethics and level of conscious. If you can't accept the truth (or facts) even if they come from Islam consider yourself a bigot. -end
The faults lines move due to the motion of plates which is thought to be caused by mantle convection currents, although earth tides may have a little contribution to fault motion, in order to trigger few earthquakes.
Your claim that mountains are formed by earth tides and faults generally move by the latters isn't accepeted by modern geology.
Calling it a truth would be insult to intelligence.
Pseudoscience however would be a more appropriate word to describe that.
5-) So, the real issue here is that you start with an assumption about what is said in the Quran. That assumption is that it talks about the earth queakes and refers to the tectonic movements. Well, actually it does but in a much wider scale than you could imagine. It does not talk about shaking the ground but ittalks about sahking the earth itself by celestial forces, Earth Tide. And this perfectly gets in line with what is said in the Quran.
4-) Earth tide talks that the land mass moves in this process, and apperantly mountains are the results of this process buy extending and contracting the earth mass in relation to its rotational axis.
In the second part, when you say you found a contradiction, actually you confirm this since, to keep the earth in constant balance, mountains should always move under the influence of changing forces. >>
I must disagree, mountains are created through tectonic events, their creation process are thus unrelated to tides or Earth rotation.
BTW Moon's tides are ridiculously weak to make the Earth shake violently, with or without mountains. And what you bring about volcanoes triggered by tides doesn't prove your point either.
@silveren777 "I must disagree, mountains are created through tectonic events, their creation process are thus unrelated to tides or Earth rotation."
What is causing the tectonic events?
"BTW Moon's tides are ridiculously weak to make the Earth shake violently, with or without mountains. And what you bring about volcanoes triggered by tides doesn't prove your point either."
If you have any logical refutation with explanations please do so, things are not happening due to your wishes.
@silveren777 ["They are believed to be induced by convection currents in the mantle."]
"Since tidal forces generate currents of conducting fluids within the interior of the Earth, they affect in turn the Earth's magnetic field itself."
Does this answer your question about the earth tide and it relation to mountain ranges etc, ?
Earth tide causes manta to move mountains act like balancing wieghts on the crust (conservation of angular momentum). During the process they move as well.
Irrelevant, your objectivity is proven false regardless. Which translates to that even if it is proven(scientifically without bias that is) you find another excuse to reject this.
@silveren777 3-) "Did you learn to read? Conducting fluids refer to the core."
No it's not. it is Referring to "ANY" conducting fluid underneath the earth's crust NOT THE IRON CORE ALONE.
"mountains act like balancing wieghts
Remain to be proven."
And, so is your friction theory. However, you still need the earth tide to explain why friction between fault lines should function as a balancing force.
So, actually what you are trying to do is applying double standard >>
Maybe you don't know, it's the core (precisely the outer one) which is liquid that has fluids that conduct electricty (molten iron and nickel), on the contrary the mantle above is DUCTILE.
About "my" friction theory you could search in the wiki you often quote in 'plate tectonics'; thus i'm clearly not making a special pleading. what i said is based on geological knowledge, whereas your claims are merely personal interpretation of geology.
The pot calling the kettle black; first learn to understand a text, second get more knowledge, afterwards maybe you could see your arguments are not enough to prove your claims.
@silveren777 2-) "afterwards maybe you could see your arguments are not enough to prove your claims. "
First you have to learn what is considerd as a legitimate proof. For example if you set to prove the tehory of revolution, you can only speak about events that would support the general evolution theory since you can prove evolution.
This is a similar case if you can;t show the falsity of my arguments then you have to admit they explain the event lgically. >>
@silveren777 I just noticed. I am not talking about Moon tide, I am talking about EARTH TIDE. Please look it up, this is quite different than Moon tide.
Yes different, REALLY. You said moon tide, while I was clearly referencing to Earth tide.
"Since tidal forces generate currents of conducting fluids within the interior of the Earth, they affect in turn the Earth's magnetic field itself."
Does this sound different enough to you?
Look please if you want to respond try to understand really what is said. Then learn. Earth tide is not weak at all. Tremendous forces are involved in the process.
@silveren777 "The use of the word tide is by analogy, and although the forcing is quite similar, the responses are quite different." (earth tide: wikipedia online)
Please man at least check a most common source. I know what I am talking about, you keep on inssiting that as if I am a cave man i hatched (?!) out of an egg yesterday. I am Muslim and I know better than you do. Either digest this and maintain a level of conversation or simply shut up. This is insulting you keep on doing.
What you quote is about ocean tides confused. But we were talking about Moon induced tides and earth tides whereas the latter is induced by the former. so earth tides is also a Moon's tide.
i'm just telling what i see, there are no insults.
@silveren777 "What you quote is about ocean tides confused. But we were talking about Moon induced tides and earth tides whereas the latter is induced by the former. so earth tides is also a Moon's tide."
NO IT"S NOT. GO READ MAN FOR WHATEVER YOU HOLD DEAR"S SAKE.
"i'm just telling what i see, there are no insults."
Your whole attitude is insulting since you keep on making comments without reading and learning about the subject.
@silveren777 "i'm just telling what i see, there are no insults."
No yo9uare just speaking out of ignorance reflecting your islamophobic inclinations. You not only have the correct info about the subject (you still insist on your idiocy after being given references that Earth "Tide" is not a tide like the moon tide at all. Of course, you still try to legitmize your connection this with the moon tide.
Digets this first. a Muslim can know more about science than yourself. OK?
Oh! Again the same strawman, really are you forced to use such a fallacy to discredit me?
I was clear about htis, i meant earth tides are caused by Moon's differential force just like ocean tides are, that's why it says they are both Moon's tide-tides caused by the Moon. I never inteded to say earth tides have the same effect on earth as ocean tides on water.
Then, you openly charge me with islamophobia.... that accusation is so stupid it doesn't deserve any answer.
AH! again the idiotic repsonse by someone who doesn;t even know what is the meaning of a strawman argument. After all, there is not only one wrgument to refute your idiocy.
"really are you forced to use such a fallacy to discredit me?"
To call a fallacy first you have to show "the fallacy."
"I was clear about htis"
I am merely repsonding what you wrote, if you don;t know what youare saying it is not my fault.>>
@silveren777 2-) "i meant earth tides are caused by Moon's differential force just like ocean tides are"
Do you want me to requote? Because, the difference is not about what causes the "earth tide." You claimed that it is weak and implied that it is negligable in means of the movement of earths crust.
"it says they are both Moon's tide-tides caused by the Moon."
It doesn't say that idiot. It says earth tide is not even a tide at all like the moon tide. >>
@silveren777 "No, buffoon! You're again CONFUSING OCEAN TIDES with what I call MOON'S TIDES:"
NO IDIOT YOU CONFUSED THEM FROM THE BEGINNING. GO BACK SEE HOW MANY TIMES I TOLD YOU THAT EARTH TIDE IS NOT EVEN A TIDE AT ALL.
"I CLEARLY DEFINED MOON'S TIDES AS THE ACTION OF MOON'S DIFFERENTIAL FORCE ON OUR PLANET,"
NO YOU ARE WRON MOON"S TIDE IS THE RESULT OF FORCES THAT ARE APPLIED ON EARTH THEY ARE NOT THE FORCES TEHMSELVES. BECUASE OF THE MOONS GRAVITY THERE ARE MOON TIDES. IDIOT.
@silveren777 The article Ctnd 2-) In a fluid this results in the familiar cells of hot liquid rising, cooling at the top of the cell and sinking back down to the source of the heat, only to be heated and repeat the cycle ... As a result of this complexity, progress in understanding the generation of the Earth's magnetic field has been slow."
IDIOT here is your proof that mantle is a conducting fluid.
IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT I keep on telling to read and learn he still speaks idiocy.
@Fussinated "You are an idiot not to admit that you are wrond and idiot."
From a person who wants to redefine geology according to his whims, that's not credible statement.
"you just being quoted by two of them one for thd kids"
check on wiki if you like,tell me if you find conducting fluids in the mantle...
"one for the adults."
when it deals with convection affecting magnetic field, it talks about the core. In your source, Just look what you see just after the last sentence you quoted.
"IDIOT I quoted from UCLA article. If WIKI didn;t mention does not mean there is none."
Buffoon, you've made the unwarranted assumption that fluids both refer to the mantle and core, i told you to read again your source for it in state in contrast 'SOLID mantle'.
So don't take your misinterpretation as an evidence for your point, crackpot.
...from an idiot and ignorant Islamophobe...
Ah, islamophobe again? too much paranoid delusion... idiot?if youre confusing me with you, i agree.
@silveren777 4-) "Buy glasses! it merely says the convection in mantle may influence core convection (and in turn influence magnetic fields in the core), that doesn't amount to "mantle generates partly Earth's magnetic field"."
I don't need glasses idiot. You should learn to think. If something is effecting Mantle and outer core keeps on moving, they are generating the magnetic field together, this doesn't mean the mantle "creates" the field together though.
@silveren777 "when it deals with convection affecting magnetic field, it talks about the core. In your source, Just look what you see just after the last sentence you quoted."
OK here is another study for you, You asked whether there is ANY refernce to mantle's magnetic properties;
"From this gross thermodynamical point of view it is clear that the two systems are coupled, however the finer details of lower mantle convection have a large impact on core processes ... >>"
Did i say the mantle was an electric insulator, i say it doesn't contians conducting fluids, (it's common to call conductor element that conducts electricity with a low resistance/impedance.
"You asked whether there is ANY refernce to mantle's magnetic properties"
Buy glasses! it merely says the convection in mantle may influence core convection (and in turn influence magnetic fields in the core), that doesn't amount to "mantle generates partly Earth's magnetic field".
@silveren777 4-) "Buy glasses! it merely says the convection in mantle may influence core convection (and in turn influence magnetic fields in the core), that doesn't amount to "mantle generates partly Earth's magnetic field"."
I don't need glasses idiot. You should learn to think. If someone is effecting Mantle and outer core keeps on moving, generating the magnetic field together
@silveren777 "Are you BLIND? Where on earth did i claim Moon tides are the forces themselves?"
I am not blind you are an idiot.
"You see, you put words in my mouth i didn't say..."
I put your words where they belong. I speak about Earth Tide If you don't mean moon tide is the force that causes the tide why are you mentioning in the first place, while I keep on saying that earth tide is not even a tide?
@silveren777 "SUCH DIFFERENTIAL FORCE CREATES OCEAN TIDES AND EARTH TIDES.
You wanted evidence you were making a strawman? Here it is!"
IDIOT. LISTEN CAREFULLY. YOu saws the EARTH TIDE and you immediatley jumped on the MOON TIDE. EARTH TIDE IS NOT A TIDE IDIOT. You tried to establish and analogy between these two. YES THEY ARE CAUSE BY THE MOON AND SUN AND ETC. I ALREADY SAID THAT, IT WAS QUOTED. BUT EARTH TIDE IS DIFFERENT THAN THE MOON TIDE. IT IS NOT EVEN A TIDE.
@silveren777 3-) Here is what i want you to do. Grab a blank sheet of paper, and fill it up with " earth tide is not a tide like moon tide." OK?
"I never inteded to say earth tides have the same effect on earth as ocean tides on water."
Intend? Then why did you mention in the first place? Why are we comparing the moon tide with earth tide even after so many times I stated that they are different. Do you always say irrelevant things? you intended alright, you try to back up. >>
"I am merely repsonding what you wrote, if you don;t know what youare saying it is not my fault."
Sorry, but i did know what i'm saying, so don't try to change your inability to read into something else against me, this trick fails in a pitiful way.
@silveren777 4-) "Then, you openly charge me with islamophobia"
Yes, you are an ISLAMOPHOBE. I can repeat this as many times as you like since it is a correct statment.
"that accusation is so stupid it doesn't deserve any answer."
Well, that's a change because with this level of approach you can easily start to speak with arguments based on multiple standards to defend yourself. >>
@silveren777 4-) Consider this, you don't have a solid scientific explanation on a subject, yet you claim that you refuted an expression in the Quran. How can you refute anything without you having a solid explanation on the subject?
So, the explanation in the Quran, at least at the level of hypothesis, is as valid as any explanation done by so called scientists. -end.
@silveren777 "Where is stated mountains might be formed due to mantle convection? Google and basic knowledge on geology would tell you this model exists."
IDIOT. MANTLE MOVEMENT IS CAUSED BY EARTH TIDES. THEREFORE EARTH TIDES IS THE CAUSE OF THE FORMATION OF MOUNTAINS. YOUR MODEL CONFIRMS WHAT I AM SAYING. I SIMPLY PUT A AND B TOGETHER.
Can you see this? I mean really why I might be mentioning the earth tides otherwise?
Only and idiot claim that it is the earths core not the mantle >
@silveren777 "We surely not have the same definition of idiot. Have you ever see conducting fluids contributing to Earth's magnetic field IN the MANTLE?"
IN THE NAMNTLE is the product of your idiotic reasoning.
"Geologists also can learn a lot about the core of our planet by looking at Earth’s magnetic field. The Magnetic field is created by massive circulations of hot liquid mantel beneath the Earth’s surface"
This is from geology for kids, you don't even know that much.
Nice try! this is what happen when you have a kid websites, lack of accuracy and oversimplification: the mantle isn't liquid at all, pressure and temperature makes it ductile and malleable.
Try something more serious like NOVA website or even wiki.
@silveren777 "Try something more serious like NOVA website or even wiki"
LOL Since I knew you were gonna come up with something like that I also quoted excerpt from a CULA article. LOL that is what happens eventually when you speak without knowing.
Also If I am a lid you are not a pot If I am a pot you are not a lid. Not even close. You make interesting claims to prove your idiocy too by the way.
"LOL that is what happens eventually when you speak without knowing."
parle pour toi, as the french say.
"Also If I am a lid you are not a pot If I am a pot you are not a lid. Not even close. You make interesting claims to prove your idiocy too by the way."
I'm going to be clear: your text from UCLA tells you the phenomenon of convection requires the motion of material. After that, it explains how convection occurs in fluids, then adds it occurs in a "solid mantle" as well.
See? Only a misinterpretation of this text could give you "mantle=>fluid".
So, you just proved how fool and ignorant you are.. and the funniest thing is that you reproach me with your own faults, confirming your hypocrisy (or strong delusion).
OK I will be clear to you too. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Now why I say this? Simple,
1-) Mantle is a layer in which liqud material rises then becomes cold and falls back and melts again. So, your SOLID MANTLE refers to UPPER MANTLE.
"The Mantle is considered fluid, with motions driven by heat generated by radioactive decay (both within itself and from within the central Core)." (C Johnson, Physicist, Physics Degree from Univ of Chicago) >
Crackpot! The mantle is considered as fluid because it flows in geological time-scale, but it's not a liquid at all, it's ductile, even the lower mantle. For instance about CMB, the boundary zone between lower mantle and outer core, a university says
"Earth's internal structure changes abruptly where the SOLID rock of the MANTLE meets the swirling molten iron of the outer core. " from UniSci.
@silveren777 "Crackpot! The mantle is considered as fluid because it flows in geological time-scale, but it's not a liquid at all, it's ductile, even the lower mantle."
IDIOT, Mantle is not homogenous, and read before you respond, UPPER MANTLE is differnt than mantle.
"For instance about CMB, the boundary zone between lower mantle and outer core, a university says"
THER IS NO SUCH THING AS LOWER MANTLE. Sto trying argue like pushcart salesman.
@silveren777 > "There exists substantial evidence that the lowermost mantle has an influence over the pattern of magnetic flux leaving Earth's core. Although more controversial, there also exist both paleomagnetic and geomagnetic data compatible with the hypothesis that polarity reversal begins with the near total destruction of the axial dipole, leaving a complex field configuration whose source is the variation of physical properties about the core-mantle boundary. >>
@silveren777>> If so, it follows that quality, detailed paleomagnetic transition data spanning events over considerable geologic time may provide a unique tool to understanding spatial-temporal aspects of the mantle's effect on core fluid motion and related magnetic flux that reaches Earth's surface. In this talk we explore this possibility given published and newly-analyzed reversal data that span the latter half of the Cenozoic."
@silveren777 The previous quote was from (Callahan, C. N.; Geissman, J. W.; Selverstone, J.; Brearley, A. J. (American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2005, abstract #T13A-0424)
"Have you ever see conducting fluids contributing to Earth's magnetic field IN the MANTLE?"
If mantle has an effect on the core's magnetic properties, of course, it will contribute to Earth's magnetic field. However, if you mean, if mantle contributes the CREATION of the magnetic field, no one claimed such a thing. See, it is you who come up with strawman arguments which is not there. >>
RE in English:
islam(dash)guide(dot)com/ch1(dash)1(dash)b(dot) h t m
TheBrightWay 1 month ago
@TheBrightWay "in English: islam(dash)guide(dot)com/ch1(dash)1(dash)b(dot) h t m"
RE
That page just grabs at the visual description of "roots/pegs". Says science didn't discover this until 19th century, but Quran probably just got it's ideas from earlier religions (Job 28:9, Rig Veda B10 H44:8).
Most of the references are from a book written specifically to convince you of miracles in the Quran, and mostly appear to refer to the authors own impressions, not outside sources.
OptimisticCynic715 1 month ago
RE in Arabic:
eajaz(dot)org/shobohat/earth/earth(dash)18(dot)p d f
eajaz(dot)org/shobohat/earth/earth(dash)19(dot)p d f
eajaz(dot)org/shobohat/earth/earth(dash)21(dot)p d f
remove spaces and replace what is between brackets
TheBrightWay 1 month ago
you used my scans of press and siever - give a link to my vids in return thanks
turnerchris1 3 months ago
@kawishosa93 obviously..they state the common facts that was understood by desert dwellers at that time..god doesnt have tor WRITE a text to fakin communicate with humans..who could do better. GOD is just a MYTH..any god.. its high time we learn that n move on..this world would be much much much bettter place without relgions
chinamanspeakenlis 8 months ago 2
@kawishosa93
Who is "we" in that quote?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 8 months ago
continued.. such imbalance by changing mass distribution on the Earth, and unescapably moved the center of mass litlle further from Earth's rotation axis.
But you did'nt show (as i asked you) mountains -if they are "tire-wheight"-like- how they were put in the right place, whereas continents locations often changed in Earth's history and many mountains were raised and eroded, and geologists didn't notice any violent shaking at those epochs.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 conitnued.... except maybe when our planet were the targets of celestial bodies.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "except maybe when our planet were the targets of celestial bodies."
Nope. However, you have to make one fact clear mountains are there and earth is balanced. Everything you say about world not changing its rotational axis fast, proves the claim that mountains balance the earth. If you want to refute this explanation, remove the mountains and show everyone that it does not change anything in world rotation. And Good luck with that since even the galciers effect this rotation.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 "ironically it's, as you saw, a mountain that provoked such imbalance."
To the contrary because of the earth tides it is the mountains that keep the axial balance relatively stable.
"such imbalance by changing mass distribution on the Earth, and unescapably moved the center of mass litlle further from Earth's rotation axis."
Again please read the necessary reference I quoted. The theory is that the axial movement become coaxial in time, along with mountain formation. >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 "But you did'nt show (as i asked you)"
How do you mean? I explained to you this. ROTATIONAL INERTIA. What is it you don;t understand about this?
"Earth's history and many mountains were raised and eroded, and geologists didn't notice any violent shaking at those epochs."
Actually they did. and they estimate that it happened three or four times in the world history. However it is because of the mountain formations these changes limited to that less many. >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
Stupid guy, it's not unlikely to do such little mistakes when you do something else at the same time.
silveren777 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 "Stupid guy, it's not unlikely to do such little mistakes when you do something else at the same time."
IDIOT first I have to know that you made a mistake if you quote me some ayah numbers I will never know you are making a mistake by looking at the numbers.
Also, it is not unlikely for you to do such a mistake since you live in a dllusion.
Fussinated 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 "Stupid guy, it's not unlikely to do such little mistakes when you do something else at the same time."
IDIOT I am doing something else too. So if you are not aware of making mistakes, by simply looking at numbers you refer as ayah numbers how would I know you mean another surah? As I said stop accusing others for your mistakes. You are an idiot and noone else repsonsible from this.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 OK here is the issue if we lift mountains, until the new ones form to balance the world will wobble, then the mountains will function the same way. Now if you remove too much land mass though things might change drastically.
So again what is it that you don't agree with the explanation of Ibn Katheer.
A note; i already explained to you about how Ibn Katheers comments could be understood. Stop making imaginary arguments in my place. Do you want to be like me? :)
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
This requires to prove that mountains when they form are placed exactly in the places required to ajust Earth's moment of inertia to its rotation axis...
Unlike a tire, Earth hasn't any physical axle which impose what the earth must rotate around, and which could, due to imperfect alignement, shift the axis from wheel center of mass, so our planet is able to balance itself after some epochs in order to rotate around its axis of inertia.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "This requires to prove that mountains when they form are placed exactly in the places required to ajust Earth's moment of inertia to its rotation axis..."
Which also means that it's required to be DISPROVEN as well. If you think you can be objective and get rid of your bias against Islam you can even try to be scientific.
>>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Unlike a tire, Earth hasn't any physical axle which impose what the earth must rotate around,"
Firs digest the idea of rotational inertia then we can talk about the axial diffrences in the rotation of earths layers. Where ever ther ies rotation, there is an axis, physical or not. where ever there is a rotational movement there is a rotational inertia.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 3-) "and which could, due to imperfect alignement, shift the axis from wheel center of mass"
There is no such thing as imperfect alignment.
"so our planet is able to balance itself after some epochs in order to rotate around its axis of inertia."
This is false. Depending on what you are trying to say, lacks a lot at best. The theory is earth's core and the crust were not co axial at first and in time they reached a balance, >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 4-) Also;
"Earth hasn't any physical axle"
Because of this earth tends to wobble more than turning on a real axis, which makes the balancing function of the mountains even more significant.
"However mountains mass is few compared to whole Earth's to provoke a human time-scale shaking"
This is an unsupported claim. If you know this for a fact it is alone enough to refute the claim about the funtions of the mountain. However you don't know this for a fact. ??
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
"This is an unsupported claim" and in "This is false"
Do such a trivial things need evidence? just look in the example of supervolcano.
"You are aware that you're confirming the function of the mountains as balancer due to world's rotation?"
Not at all, the relevant subject invokes nowhere the presence of mountains as responsible for the return to balance, ironically it's, as you saw, a mountain that provoked such imbalance.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Not at all, the relevant subject invokes nowhere the presence of mountains as responsible for the return to balance"
Yes at all. the issue is there was no need to return to a balance because of the mountains, Because of the mountains the axial change effects takes millions of years. If there weren't mountains the axials shift would have occured faster.
>>
ironically it's, as you saw, a mountain that provoked such imbalance."
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
"If there weren't mountains the axials shift would have occured faster."
proofs?
"How do you mean? I explained to you this. ROTATIONAL INERTIA. What is it you don;t understand about this?"
You didn't explain anything. the fact that mountains masses (and former ones) are/were in the right places to permit balancing sounds too IMPROBABLE, no wonder this requires a more elaborated explanation.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "proofs?"
The stable earth is the proof you gave many yourself with arguments the slow changes in the rotational axis of th earth. where are your disproofs and refutations?
"You didn't explain anything. the fact that mountains masses (and former ones) are/were in the right places to permit balancing sounds too IMPROBABLE, no wonder this requires a more elaborated explanation"
To the contrary souther hemipsphere less mountains due to less land mass. This alone is enough. >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
"The stable earth is the proof you gave many yourself with arguments the slow changes in the rotational axis of th earth. where are your disproofs and refutations?"
Mere logic tells you that from what i quoted The Earth slowly tilted just prove the Earth slowly tilted.
Concluding from this that mountains are the cause of this stability is a non-sequitur and thus requires a justification.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Concluding from this that mountains are the cause of this stability is a non-sequitur and thus requires a justification"
Non-sequitur? The conclusion does not follow what? World is stable thus the argument is satsified. you are non-sequitur. Also, this is a hypthesis, if the word is stable, then it is confirmed with the arguments you are bringing up. You should bring an alternative hypothesis and show us that your agurments support that one instead of this one. >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
Yes it's a non-sequitur. That only proves the Earth is stable and can restore its balance. By what? it doesn't precise it's due to mountains. So it's up to you to prove your hypothesis, not to me to prove you wrong.
"Now, this is non-sequitur and irrelevant"
Not at all! Since balancers mustn't placed only according to continents position.
silveren777 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 "Yes it's a non-sequitur."
Do you know the meaning of the non-sequitur?
"That only proves the Earth is stable and can restore its balance. By what?"
BY THE PRINCIPALS OF THE PHYSICAL LAW KNOWN AS CONSERVATION OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM via the adjustments on its ROTATIONAL INERTIA mainly determined by the mountain formations.
Do you really know the meaning of non-sequitur at all.
>>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 "the Earth isn't fixed on a rigid axle"
You say this, and then say this;
"Fortunately rotational inertia principle doesn't change!"
You refute your own argument.
You are aware of this aspect of your approach right? This also proves that you are rejecting this explanation with extreme prejudice.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Mere logic tells you that from what i quoted The Earth slowly tilted just prove the Earth slowly tilted."
NO. The events you are bringing to disprove the hypothesis are actually proving it. Mere logic tells me somethings else due to such remakrs of yours.
"The Earth isn't just land mass"
Now, this is non-sequitur and irrelevant. Then I also should speak about where a mountains tarts and it ends etc. A high plateau could well be considerd as amountain etc. >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
"To the contrary souther hemipsphere less mountains due to less land mass. This alone is enough"
The Earth isn't just land mass, mass distriubtion on our planet includes anything that has a mass, so the ocean, the oceanic crust, as well.Enough? i don't think so, when you want to balance car tires, you have to bring a more complete analysis, before ensuring the tire wieght are well placed.
not to mention mountains and continents were at different place millions years ago.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Do such a trivial things need evidence? just look in the example of supervolcano."
OK for you to make a comparison. Himalayas contain ~12,000 km3 of fresh water. This is just the amount of water, not the land mass. The largest supervolcane moved ~ 5000 km3. In comparison to the all mountain formations mass on earth the dramatic change you assume that should happen, won't happen at all. Earth is balanced with mountains quite steadily.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
not to mention volume in itself is useless if there are no precision about density nor the area the mass is spreading over; what's relevant for the supervolcano, in the case of true polar wander, is its weight on the Earth, not the volume of its ejected material.
"Actually they did. and they estimate that it happened three or four times in the world history"
Indeed, but those shifts were not violent in the way i implied: human time-scale shaking.
silveren777 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 "not to mention volume in itself is useless if there are no precision about density nor the area the mass is spreading over"
You mentioned the super volcanos I GAVE THE NUMBERS, if your example doesn't support your claim don't put the blame me.
"is its weight on the Earth, not the volume of its ejected material."
Av density of earth is 3.3 to 5.5. I gave the water amount do the math. Even, this is not enough for you to disprove the claim. >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Indeed, but those shifts were not violent in the way i implied: human time-scale shaking."
That is the whole idea. Regardless the nature of those shakes they were balanced by the mountains.
You are proving the function of the mountains with your own words, yet because you thinks like "Quran and Islam can;t be right, they must not be right." you keep on refuting your own arguments, but you don't want to admit it.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
Rather, my rejection of mountains as tire-weight isn't motivated by a blind dismissal of Quran, but by lack of evidence.
Moreover, Earth isn't like your tire in many aspect (from mechanical viewpoint), it's much larger (more inertia), heavier and spins at a lower angular speed compared to a tire, as result the center of mass displacement by mass on the surface (which are tiny in comparison) is very slight and Earth's large inertia would take a long time to make our planet tilt.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Rather, my rejection of mountains as tire-weight isn't motivated by a blind dismissal of Quran, but by lack of evidence."
No evidence is right there, you keep on speaking about it. If you are sincere, you should dismiss that earth has a balanced rotational movement due to lack of existing scientific explanation for it. you are applying double standard. After all the rotational movement and the land mass relation is proven already. Your denial is due to your bias towards Islam.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Moreover, Earth isn't like your tire in many aspect (from mechanical viewpoint)"
Indeed, but the principals of rotational inertia does not change, the tire example is given to explain this fact. However, for those who can;t even understand an example, it is difficult to dicuss the relating aspects of the event to that example.
>>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
Fortunately rotational inertia principle doesn't change! But it's clear both system (car tires, Earth) wouldn't response in the same way, in the same time lapse.
"you don't want to mention that the rotation of the earth were not co axial then as well."
According to true polar wander theory, it was in epoch when there weren't a problem of mass distribution, and when there weren't supercontinent.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "So, it's up to you to prove your hypothesis, not to me to prove you wrong."
I am giving the supporting arguments. However you are trying reject them without bringing explanations to your rejections.
"Not at all! Since balancers mustn't placed only according to continents position."
Huh? Then where are you gonna place balancers on the oceans? Are you planing to create galcier ice around the equator or something? We are talking about a real, existing object; EARTH. >
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
"Then where are you gonna place balancers on the oceans? Are you planing to create galcier ice around the equator or something? We are talking about a real, existing object"
Well, there is also irregularities in oceanic crust, so they need to be compensed as well.
"I am giving the supporting arguments.However you are trying reject them without bringing explanations to your rejections."
Without any explanations? That's an overstatement...
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Well, there is also irregularities in oceanic crust, so they need to be compensed as well."
Do you have even and idea of what rotational inertia is all about? The deeper the oceans go the higher the land mass will rise if you keep the ratio of the land water the same.
"Without any explanations? That's an overstatement..."
With the explanation (conservation of angular momentum etc, as well as the polar shift theories relation and all) this is speaking lies.
Fussinated 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fussinated
"The deeper the oceans go the higher the land mass will rise if you keep the ratio of the land water the same."
Why?
"this is speaking lies."
Where do i lie exactly?
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Fortunately rotational inertia principle doesn't change! But it's clear both system (car tires, Earth) wouldn't response in the same way, in the same time lapse."
Then explain how they repsonse differently so that we should know.
"According to true polar wander theory, it was in epoch when there weren't a problem of mass distribution, and when there weren't supercontinent."
Polar wander theory, tries to explain the polar shift, it does not try to explain Inertia of earth>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
"Then explain how they repsonse differently so that we should know."
Rotation inertia
Polar wander theory, tries to explain the polar shift, it does not try to explain Inertia of earth>
Indeed, but just before TPW occured and after it vanished, scientific litteratue makes clear Earth's axis pass almost through the axis of inertia.
silveren777 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 "Rotation inertia"
False you already admitted that the principals of rotatinal inertia does not change. How can they two respond differently?
"Indeed, but just before TPW occured and after it vanished, scientific litteratue makes clear Earth's axis pass almost through the axis of inertia."
And? Explain what does this mean to you.
Fussinated 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 "it's much larger (more inertia), heavier and spins at a lower angular speed compared to a tire, as result the center of mass displacement by mass on the surface (which are tiny in comparison) is very slight and Earth's large inertia would take a long time to make our planet tilt."
This is true, but you also miss the fact that largets geological formations occur on smaller planets mars has deeper canyons than earth etc,>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 So, the size of the earth still allows the crust to work as balancing factor. This alone is more than enough to support the idea that mountains function as balancing weights.
"not to mention mountains and continents were at different place millions years ago."
Well, of course, you don't want to mention that the rotation of the earth were not co axial then as well. Slowly with the balancing act of the mountains and irregularities of the crust it is almost co axial now.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 So, regardless, your bias against Islam is forcing you to speak false(with remarks such as non-sequitur irrelevantly). non-scientific(concluding about the Quran's claim as scientific while you fail to have a factual scientific explanation). More, you force yourself to deny logical arguments for the sake of refuting and contradicting yourself.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
As you see, your charge still fails. Instead of succeding in proving your case, you baselessly compare Earth with tires as if they have the same response, without knowing since the Earth isn't fixed on a rigid axle,nothing stop it from restoring itself its balance with the force of rotation.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 > However the theories to explain polar shift of the earth complies with the explanations of the continetal moevemnts due rotational inertia of the Earth.
"As you see, your charge still fails."
No your effrots fail to refute.
"you baselessly compare Earth with tires"
Explain why it is baseless?
"the Earth isn't fixed on a rigid axle"
You say this, and then say this;
"Fortunately rotational inertia principle doesn't change!"
You refute your own argument.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
"Explain why it is baseless?"
Already done. But normally you must prove the analogy is correct (since it's you that claimed it), otherwise there would be infinite things that are true if we don't refute them.
"You refute your own argument."
or course! nobodoy could doubt spinning bodies having different properties would react exactly same way, (this what car tire analogy supposes)...
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Already done."
No you didn't. You tried make a false argument over a fixed axis, which explained a difference, But the reason of being baseless you didn't so please explain it. Do it again if you did won't hurt your brain.
"But normally you must prove the analogy is correct (since it's you that claimed it),"
LOL. A correct analogy. That's a nice one. However, to apply the principals of physics the analogy is correct. It your responsibilty to prove the analogy as "false."
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
"However, to apply the principals of physics the analogy is correct. It your responsibilty to prove the analogy as "false." "
Not when the compared object have different properties, such as angular velocity, diameter, mass , and so on... you can't expect they will react the same way to perturbations.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Not when the compared object have different properties, such as angular velocity, diameter, mass , and so on... you can't expect they will react the same way to perturbations."
Why not? It is rotating and it needs to be balanced, Should I respect that earth should react outside the principals of physics of totating bodies? You have to realize that the axis of rotation always passes thourgh the center of mass, and that is how you determine the wobble, not by a physical shaft.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated correction; respect should be expect.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
When i said "not reacting the same way", i meant their umbalance won't be sensitive as we could feel the umbalance of a tire.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "When i said "not reacting the same way", i meant their umbalance won't be sensitive as we could feel the umbalance of a tire."
Here we go again, I mean this I mean that.
Well, OK, How do you determine the sensitivity? There is the rotational axis and there is the distance from the axis. What effects this sensitivityto make these two rotations different? You add subtract weight and you redistribute weight, you manipulate the distance from the axis, >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated >> these are all the same for both. What should be different to effect sensitivity?
Fussinated 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fussinated "When i said "not reacting the same way", i meant their umbalance won't be sensitive as we could feel the umbalance of a tire."
Just a correction; it is either imbalance or unbalance. there is no such thing as umbalance.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
"Here we go again, I mean this I mean that."
i didn't determine for it a different meaning at first.
Regarding the second sentence, the sensitivity of the wobble (whether umbalance is noticieable to human or not) is determined by how resistant to change to its motion is the spinning body is (due to its mass) and how far the center of mass is displaced.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "i didn't determine for it a different meaning at first."
?? What are you talking about? Words are there to express what you want to communicate. misunderstanding can occur, however if you experience the same pattern over and over again, either you are not capable of expressing yourself clearly or you are not clear in what you want to communicate at all.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
Didn't i tell you i'm french? So, don't wonder why my english isn't so perfect and so clear, but i'm trying to improve this as much as i can.
silveren777 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 "Didn't i tell you i'm french?"
No, you didn't.
"So, don't wonder why my english isn't so perfect and so clear, but i'm trying to improve this as much as i can."
I am not wondering at all, No need to be offended I only corrected your so that you should improve faster. Only if you could imporve in understanding the issue at hand as well.
Fussinated 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 "Regarding the second sentence, the sensitivity of the wobble (whether umbalance is noticieable to human or not) is determined by how resistant to change to its motion is the spinning body is (due to its mass) and how far the center of mass is displaced."
No. youare still not clear about the sensitivity. Let's say that 10 kg sphere is less sensitive to 10 grams of change in its mass than 1000 kg sphere with 1000grams with the same radius?
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 "or course! nobodoy could doubt spinning bodies having different properties would react exactly same way, (this what car tire analogy supposes)..."
Here is analogy 101; Every rotation has an axis. Every object that rotates around an axis will wobble if the weight distrubution is non-homogenous. Every wobble is balanced by adding and subtracting weight. This process adding and subtracting, is more effective the farther from the axis.>>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated >> this principal does not change whether an object rotates around a fixed(with this you mean a physical shaft), or not.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
yes, but a free spinning body can, after some time, ajust itself to rotate around its own center of mass due to the force of body rotation (see TPW article at physorg for instance), because the axis is not imposed by a fixed material axle.
And wobble is different if the spinning body is larger and heavier (thus large resistance to change in motion) and has a low speed, and that mass distribution is little compared to the mass of the whole body.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "yes, but a free spinning body can, after some time, ajust itself to rotate around its own center of mass due to the force of body rotation (see TPW article at physorg for instance), because the axis is not imposed by a fixed material axle."
No, no. The principal does not change, instead of adding or aubtracting weights you, then shift the weight distribution within the object, THAT WHICH CONFIRMS THE BALANCING FUNCTION OF THE MOUNTAINS.
Again you refute your own argument.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
"The principal does not change, instead of adding or aubtracting weights you, then shift the weight distribution within the object"
Sure! but the issue is that how is mass umbalanced distribution on the surface compared to Earth's mass? how would be the resulant wobble on the Earth?
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "And wobble is different if the spinning body is larger and heavier (thus large resistance to change in motion) and has a low speed, and that mass distribution is little compared to the mass of the whole body."
Then, it is not the rotational inertia brings the object to a balance via shifting the weight within. So, how is this object come to a balance then?
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
How? the article at physorg(dot)com about TPW could bring a answer.
silveren777 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 "How? the article at physorg(dot)com about TPW could bring a answer."
No, no give me the unversal principal of it in relation to physical laws.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
However mountains mass is few compared to whole Earth's to provoke a human time-scale shaking, at worst their removal could umbalance it on geological time-scale, just like when a supervolcano (about 800 million years ago) was forming in an "umbalancing" place probably caused the Earth to tilt (over millions of years) until the latter managed to place the mass in such a way to restore a balanced mass distribution.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 5-) "at worst their removal could umbalance it on geological time-scale"
So, at worst, mountains balance the earth.
"just like when a supervolcano (about 800 million years ago) was forming in an "umbalancing" place probably caused the Earth to tilt (over millions of years) until the latter managed to place the mass in such a way to restore a balanced mass distribution."
You are aware that you're confirming the function of the mountains as balancer due to world's rotation?
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 7-) Also;
"True polar wander, or the motion of the solid Earth with respect to a fixed spin axis that causes the spin axis to lie over a new geographic position, does occur. This is because of changes in mass distribution throughout the Earth that modify its moment of inertia tensor. The Earth consistently readjusts its orientation with respect to its spin axis such that its spin axis is parallel to the axis about which it has its greatest moment of inertia." >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 8-) "This readjustment is very slow. In 2001, historical evidence for true polar wander was found in paleomagnetic data from granitic rocks from across North America. The data from these rocks conflict with the hypothesis of a cataclysmic true polar wander event."
Thus the balancing function of the mountains confirmed by science.
>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 More so;
"True polar wander can be caused by several mechanisms of redistributing mass and changing the moment of inertia tensor of the Earth:
1-) Glacial cycles: redistribution of ice and water masses, and resultant deformation of the crust, changes the mass distribution around the Earth. (if Glacial mass is enough for this shift mountain mass must be more than enough to do the same).
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 2-) Perturbations of the topography of the core-mantle boundary, perhaps induced by differential core rotation and shift of its axial rotation vector, leading to CMB mass redistributions.
3-) Mass redistributions in the mantle.
The orientation of the rotational axis itself could be changed by high-velocity impact of a massive asteroid or comet (It is a fact that therfe are many asteoids out there and many hit the earth)" (Paranthesis are mine).
>>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 8-) So, you set sail to disprove that earth doesn't function to balance the earth yet you supported this. However do you really admit this is another story.
Fussinated 10 months ago
"you also try to play games when you make mistakes."
Again a deseperate rhetoric trick consisting in attributing your own faults to me.
"You're a typical Christian 777."
Wow.. i was an islamophobe, then a christian...well, i wonder what my new role would be.
silveren777 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 "Again a deseperate rhetoric trick consisting in attributing your own faults to me."
You are desperate to prove Islam wrong. That is why you take unethical path erasily.
"Wow.. i was an islamophobe, then a christian...well, i wonder what my new role would be."
LOL IDIOT you are an islamophobe and you are a Christian. ONe can be both you know.
Also 666 mark of the beast, 777 mark of Jesus. You are an idiot.
Fussinated 10 months ago
it's saying that the Mountains prevents the plates from moving soo frequently and so many times that we'd actualyl experience the movements as we stand on the Earth today. The mountains stabilzies these plates, where they meet, otherwise they're like lillies in an ocean.
notionSlave 11 months ago
@notionSlave
What prevent lithospheric plate from moving in a sudden manner (to is more probably the little friction between it and the asthenosphere.
silveren777 11 months ago
@silveren777 4-) You not only don't know the functions of the mountains but you also don;t know whay the fault linbes move as well. You have a theory and Quran has a theory (explanation). If you are so afraid that the Quran might be telling the truth and you have to admit it, mingling with you science to disprove the Quran, is the determining factor for your ethics and level of conscious. If you can't accept the truth (or facts) even if they come from Islam consider yourself a bigot. -end
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
The faults lines move due to the motion of plates which is thought to be caused by mantle convection currents, although earth tides may have a little contribution to fault motion, in order to trigger few earthquakes.
Your claim that mountains are formed by earth tides and faults generally move by the latters isn't accepeted by modern geology.
Calling it a truth would be insult to intelligence.
Pseudoscience however would be a more appropriate word to describe that.
silveren777 10 months ago
5-) So, the real issue here is that you start with an assumption about what is said in the Quran. That assumption is that it talks about the earth queakes and refers to the tectonic movements. Well, actually it does but in a much wider scale than you could imagine. It does not talk about shaking the ground but ittalks about sahking the earth itself by celestial forces, Earth Tide. And this perfectly gets in line with what is said in the Quran.
Fussinated 11 months ago
4-) Earth tide talks that the land mass moves in this process, and apperantly mountains are the results of this process buy extending and contracting the earth mass in relation to its rotational axis.
In the second part, when you say you found a contradiction, actually you confirm this since, to keep the earth in constant balance, mountains should always move under the influence of changing forces. >>
Fussinated 11 months ago
@Fussinated
I must disagree, mountains are created through tectonic events, their creation process are thus unrelated to tides or Earth rotation.
BTW Moon's tides are ridiculously weak to make the Earth shake violently, with or without mountains. And what you bring about volcanoes triggered by tides doesn't prove your point either.
silveren777 11 months ago
@silveren777 "I must disagree, mountains are created through tectonic events, their creation process are thus unrelated to tides or Earth rotation."
What is causing the tectonic events?
"BTW Moon's tides are ridiculously weak to make the Earth shake violently, with or without mountains. And what you bring about volcanoes triggered by tides doesn't prove your point either."
If you have any logical refutation with explanations please do so, things are not happening due to your wishes.
Fussinated 11 months ago
@Fussinated
What is causing the tectonic events?
They are believed to be induced by convection currents in the mantle.
silveren777 11 months ago
@silveren777 ["They are believed to be induced by convection currents in the mantle."]
"Since tidal forces generate currents of conducting fluids within the interior of the Earth, they affect in turn the Earth's magnetic field itself."
Does this answer your question about the earth tide and it relation to mountain ranges etc, ?
Earth tide causes manta to move mountains act like balancing wieghts on the crust (conservation of angular momentum). During the process they move as well.
Fussinated 11 months ago
@Fussinated
Did you learn to read? Conducting fluids refer to the core.
In the mantle it's mainly due to heat.
mountains act like balancing wieghts
Remain to be proven.
silveren777 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 "Did you learn to read?"
Did you?
"mountains act like balancing wieghts
Remain to be proven."
Irrelevant, your objectivity is proven false regardless. Which translates to that even if it is proven(scientifically without bias that is) you find another excuse to reject this.
Fussinated 11 months ago
@silveren777 3-) "Did you learn to read? Conducting fluids refer to the core."
No it's not. it is Referring to "ANY" conducting fluid underneath the earth's crust NOT THE IRON CORE ALONE.
"mountains act like balancing wieghts
Remain to be proven."
And, so is your friction theory. However, you still need the earth tide to explain why friction between fault lines should function as a balancing force.
So, actually what you are trying to do is applying double standard >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
Maybe you don't know, it's the core (precisely the outer one) which is liquid that has fluids that conduct electricty (molten iron and nickel), on the contrary the mantle above is DUCTILE.
About "my" friction theory you could search in the wiki you often quote in 'plate tectonics'; thus i'm clearly not making a special pleading. what i said is based on geological knowledge, whereas your claims are merely personal interpretation of geology.
silveren777 10 months ago
@Fussinated
things are not happening due to your wishes.
The pot calling the kettle black; first learn to understand a text, second get more knowledge, afterwards maybe you could see your arguments are not enough to prove your claims.
silveren777 11 months ago
@silveren777 "things are not happening due to your wishes."
And neither yours. So try to bring logical arguments instead simply claiming things which you don;t have any idea about.
"The pot calling the kettle black; first learn to understand a text"
First learn to follow a conversation. The text referring to is about earth tide NOT ABOUT PROVING THE FUNCTIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN.
"second get more knowledge,"
More knowledge about what? We talking about theories. >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 2-) "afterwards maybe you could see your arguments are not enough to prove your claims. "
First you have to learn what is considerd as a legitimate proof. For example if you set to prove the tehory of revolution, you can only speak about events that would support the general evolution theory since you can prove evolution.
This is a similar case if you can;t show the falsity of my arguments then you have to admit they explain the event lgically. >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 I just noticed. I am not talking about Moon tide, I am talking about EARTH TIDE. Please look it up, this is quite different than Moon tide.
Fussinated 11 months ago
@Fussinated
Different? not really. Apparently, Earth tides are caused by Sun's and Moon's differential forces, which what i mean by tides.
silveren777 11 months ago
@silveren777 "Different? not really."
Yes different, REALLY. You said moon tide, while I was clearly referencing to Earth tide.
"Since tidal forces generate currents of conducting fluids within the interior of the Earth, they affect in turn the Earth's magnetic field itself."
Does this sound different enough to you?
Look please if you want to respond try to understand really what is said. Then learn. Earth tide is not weak at all. Tremendous forces are involved in the process.
Fussinated 11 months ago
@Fussinated
the only reason it's called earth tides because movement of Sun and Moon move the crust.
It's not uncommon in scientific circles to call tides the action of differential force of a body on another.
silveren777 11 months ago
@silveren777 "The use of the word tide is by analogy, and although the forcing is quite similar, the responses are quite different." (earth tide: wikipedia online)
Please man at least check a most common source. I know what I am talking about, you keep on inssiting that as if I am a cave man i hatched (?!) out of an egg yesterday. I am Muslim and I know better than you do. Either digest this and maintain a level of conversation or simply shut up. This is insulting you keep on doing.
Fussinated 11 months ago
@Fussinated
What you quote is about ocean tides confused. But we were talking about Moon induced tides and earth tides whereas the latter is induced by the former. so earth tides is also a Moon's tide.
i'm just telling what i see, there are no insults.
silveren777 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 "What you quote is about ocean tides confused. But we were talking about Moon induced tides and earth tides whereas the latter is induced by the former. so earth tides is also a Moon's tide."
NO IT"S NOT. GO READ MAN FOR WHATEVER YOU HOLD DEAR"S SAKE.
"i'm just telling what i see, there are no insults."
Your whole attitude is insulting since you keep on making comments without reading and learning about the subject.
Fussinated 11 months ago
@silveren777 "i'm just telling what i see, there are no insults."
No yo9uare just speaking out of ignorance reflecting your islamophobic inclinations. You not only have the correct info about the subject (you still insist on your idiocy after being given references that Earth "Tide" is not a tide like the moon tide at all. Of course, you still try to legitmize your connection this with the moon tide.
Digets this first. a Muslim can know more about science than yourself. OK?
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
Oh! Again the same strawman, really are you forced to use such a fallacy to discredit me?
I was clear about htis, i meant earth tides are caused by Moon's differential force just like ocean tides are, that's why it says they are both Moon's tide-tides caused by the Moon. I never inteded to say earth tides have the same effect on earth as ocean tides on water.
Then, you openly charge me with islamophobia.... that accusation is so stupid it doesn't deserve any answer.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Oh! Again the same strawman"
AH! again the idiotic repsonse by someone who doesn;t even know what is the meaning of a strawman argument. After all, there is not only one wrgument to refute your idiocy.
"really are you forced to use such a fallacy to discredit me?"
To call a fallacy first you have to show "the fallacy."
"I was clear about htis"
I am merely repsonding what you wrote, if you don;t know what youare saying it is not my fault.>>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 2-) "i meant earth tides are caused by Moon's differential force just like ocean tides are"
Do you want me to requote? Because, the difference is not about what causes the "earth tide." You claimed that it is weak and implied that it is negligable in means of the movement of earths crust.
"it says they are both Moon's tide-tides caused by the Moon."
It doesn't say that idiot. It says earth tide is not even a tide at all like the moon tide. >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
No, buffoon! You're again CONFUSING OCEAN TIDES with what I call MOON'S TIDES:
I CLEARLY DEFINED MOON'S TIDES AS THE ACTION OF MOON'S DIFFERENTIAL FORCE ON OUR PLANET,
SUCH DIFFERENTIAL FORCE CREATES OCEAN TIDES AND EARTH TIDES.
You wanted evidence you were making a strawman? Here it is!
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "No, buffoon! You're again CONFUSING OCEAN TIDES with what I call MOON'S TIDES:"
NO IDIOT YOU CONFUSED THEM FROM THE BEGINNING. GO BACK SEE HOW MANY TIMES I TOLD YOU THAT EARTH TIDE IS NOT EVEN A TIDE AT ALL.
"I CLEARLY DEFINED MOON'S TIDES AS THE ACTION OF MOON'S DIFFERENTIAL FORCE ON OUR PLANET,"
NO YOU ARE WRON MOON"S TIDE IS THE RESULT OF FORCES THAT ARE APPLIED ON EARTH THEY ARE NOT THE FORCES TEHMSELVES. BECUASE OF THE MOONS GRAVITY THERE ARE MOON TIDES. IDIOT.
Fussinated 10 months ago
Comment removed
silveren777 10 months ago
@Fussinated
Are you BLIND? Where on earth did i claim Moon tides are the forces themselves?
You see, you put words in my mouth i didn't say...
And you called me an idiot in such a strawman?
THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK! Verily, i wonder whether you're a hypocrite or illetrate....
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 The article Ctnd 2-) In a fluid this results in the familiar cells of hot liquid rising, cooling at the top of the cell and sinking back down to the source of the heat, only to be heated and repeat the cycle ... As a result of this complexity, progress in understanding the generation of the Earth's magnetic field has been slow."
IDIOT here is your proof that mantle is a conducting fluid.
IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT I keep on telling to read and learn he still speaks idiocy.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
Ah, yeah that's true, the mantle contains liquid iron and liquid nickel...
It's amazing you're ready to misinterpret a text to make it say what you want to.
There nowhere a clear indication the mantle has such fluids generating Earth's magnetic fields.
the pot calling the kettle black...
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Ah, yeah that's true, the mantle contains liquid iron and liquid nickel...
It's amazing you're ready to misinterpret a text to make it say what you want to."
No. You are an idiot not to admit that you are wrond and idiot.
"There nowhere a clear indication the mantle has such fluids generating Earth's magnetic fields."
Yes there are, and more than many you just being quoted by two of them one for thd kids one for the adults. And you are not even a kid to grasp them.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated "You are an idiot not to admit that you are wrond and idiot."
From a person who wants to redefine geology according to his whims, that's not credible statement.
"you just being quoted by two of them one for thd kids"
check on wiki if you like,tell me if you find conducting fluids in the mantle...
"one for the adults."
when it deals with convection affecting magnetic field, it talks about the core. In your source, Just look what you see just after the last sentence you quoted.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "From a person who wants to redefine geology according to his whims, that's not credible statement."
Since this is coming from an idiot and ignorant Islamophobe credibiility is last thing you can question about what I say.
"check on wiki if you like,tell me if you find conducting fluids in the mantle..."
IDIOT I quoted from UCLA article. If WIKI didn;t mention does not mean there is none.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
"IDIOT I quoted from UCLA article. If WIKI didn;t mention does not mean there is none."
Buffoon, you've made the unwarranted assumption that fluids both refer to the mantle and core, i told you to read again your source for it in state in contrast 'SOLID mantle'.
So don't take your misinterpretation as an evidence for your point, crackpot.
...from an idiot and ignorant Islamophobe...
Ah, islamophobe again? too much paranoid delusion... idiot?if youre confusing me with you, i agree.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 4-) "Buy glasses! it merely says the convection in mantle may influence core convection (and in turn influence magnetic fields in the core), that doesn't amount to "mantle generates partly Earth's magnetic field"."
I don't need glasses idiot. You should learn to think. If something is effecting Mantle and outer core keeps on moving, they are generating the magnetic field together, this doesn't mean the mantle "creates" the field together though.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 "when it deals with convection affecting magnetic field, it talks about the core. In your source, Just look what you see just after the last sentence you quoted."
OK here is another study for you, You asked whether there is ANY refernce to mantle's magnetic properties;
"From this gross thermodynamical point of view it is clear that the two systems are coupled, however the finer details of lower mantle convection have a large impact on core processes ... >>"
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
Did i say the mantle was an electric insulator, i say it doesn't contians conducting fluids, (it's common to call conductor element that conducts electricity with a low resistance/impedance.
"You asked whether there is ANY refernce to mantle's magnetic properties"
Buy glasses! it merely says the convection in mantle may influence core convection (and in turn influence magnetic fields in the core), that doesn't amount to "mantle generates partly Earth's magnetic field".
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 2-) "Did i say the mantle was an electric insulator ..."
Yes, you did and then you deleted that post. Typical Islamophobe that carries the number of jesus.
3-) "i say it doesn't contians conducting fluids"
Well it does contain conducting fluids, especially near outer core. That is why it interact magnetically with the core.
Fussinated 10 months ago
Comment removed
silveren777 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 4-) "Buy glasses! it merely says the convection in mantle may influence core convection (and in turn influence magnetic fields in the core), that doesn't amount to "mantle generates partly Earth's magnetic field"."
I don't need glasses idiot. You should learn to think. If someone is effecting Mantle and outer core keeps on moving, generating the magnetic field together
>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 ">> ... it is clear that the mantle is a much poorer conductor of electricity than the core and has a much larger viscosity."
So, POORER will translate to you as NONE, since you are an idiot not to admit his idiocy and ignorance.
The quote is from "Thermal core-mantle interactions: convection, magnetic field
generation, and observational constraints" by Christopher Davies.
Mantle, outer core, not the core as you say since core is solid, all part of the EARTH TIDE.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
Morevoer he even refered to the famous Dynamo Theory, i let you see its definition, maybe you'll realize
you misinterpreted things.
silveren777 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 "Are you BLIND? Where on earth did i claim Moon tides are the forces themselves?"
I am not blind you are an idiot.
"You see, you put words in my mouth i didn't say..."
I put your words where they belong. I speak about Earth Tide If you don't mean moon tide is the force that causes the tide why are you mentioning in the first place, while I keep on saying that earth tide is not even a tide?
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 "SUCH DIFFERENTIAL FORCE CREATES OCEAN TIDES AND EARTH TIDES.
You wanted evidence you were making a strawman? Here it is!"
IDIOT. LISTEN CAREFULLY. YOu saws the EARTH TIDE and you immediatley jumped on the MOON TIDE. EARTH TIDE IS NOT A TIDE IDIOT. You tried to establish and analogy between these two. YES THEY ARE CAUSE BY THE MOON AND SUN AND ETC. I ALREADY SAID THAT, IT WAS QUOTED. BUT EARTH TIDE IS DIFFERENT THAN THE MOON TIDE. IT IS NOT EVEN A TIDE.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
I ALREADY DEFINED WHAT I MEAN BY "MOON TIDE", YOU MUST UPDATE YOUR COUNTER-ARGUMENT, BECAUSE that's a deliberate strawman.
that's doesn't mean i think earth tides have the same effect as ocean tides.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 3-) Here is what i want you to do. Grab a blank sheet of paper, and fill it up with " earth tide is not a tide like moon tide." OK?
"I never inteded to say earth tides have the same effect on earth as ocean tides on water."
Intend? Then why did you mention in the first place? Why are we comparing the moon tide with earth tide even after so many times I stated that they are different. Do you always say irrelevant things? you intended alright, you try to back up. >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
Comment removed
silveren777 10 months ago
@Fussinated
"I am merely repsonding what you wrote, if you don;t know what youare saying it is not my fault."
Sorry, but i did know what i'm saying, so don't try to change your inability to read into something else against me, this trick fails in a pitiful way.
silveren777 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 4-) "Then, you openly charge me with islamophobia"
Yes, you are an ISLAMOPHOBE. I can repeat this as many times as you like since it is a correct statment.
"that accusation is so stupid it doesn't deserve any answer."
Well, that's a change because with this level of approach you can easily start to speak with arguments based on multiple standards to defend yourself. >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
"Yes, you are an ISLAMOPHOBE. I can repeat this as many times as you like since it is a correct statment."
Yep! A statement as correct as the "Moon-made-of-cheese" belief!
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 4-) Consider this, you don't have a solid scientific explanation on a subject, yet you claim that you refuted an expression in the Quran. How can you refute anything without you having a solid explanation on the subject?
So, the explanation in the Quran, at least at the level of hypothesis, is as valid as any explanation done by so called scientists. -end.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
regarding the 4th point. from a person who doesn't know the conventionnal model of mountains formation, that's PURE HYPOCRISY.
Where is it stated earth tides forms mountains? Nowhere... (in your mind, at least, that's better than nothing!)
Where is stated mountains might be formed due to mantle convection? Google and basic knowledge on geology would tell you this model exists.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "things are not happening due to your wishes."
This is what you said to me and which I said it to you before.
So when you do it it is OK but when I do it it doesn't work? It worked perfectly to prove your double standarded approach mister.
"Where is it stated earth tides forms mountains?"
I say it.
Where is it said that anything about tectonic movements caused by something in certain terms?
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Where is stated mountains might be formed due to mantle convection? Google and basic knowledge on geology would tell you this model exists."
IDIOT. MANTLE MOVEMENT IS CAUSED BY EARTH TIDES. THEREFORE EARTH TIDES IS THE CAUSE OF THE FORMATION OF MOUNTAINS. YOUR MODEL CONFIRMS WHAT I AM SAYING. I SIMPLY PUT A AND B TOGETHER.
Can you see this? I mean really why I might be mentioning the earth tides otherwise?
Only and idiot claim that it is the earths core not the mantle >
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
"IDIOT. MANTLE MOVEMENT IS CAUSED BY EARTH TIDES"
EVIDENCES, YOU CRACKPOT?
"Only and idiot claim that it is the earths core not the mantle"
We surely not have the same definition of idiot. Have you ever see conducting fluids contributing to Earth's magnetic field IN the MANTLE?
silveren777 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 ["IDIOT. MANTLE MOVEMENT IS CAUSED BY EARTH TIDES"
EVIDENCES, YOU CRACKPOT?]
"Since tidal forces generate currents of conducting fluids within the interior of the Earth, they affect in turn the Earth's magnetic field itself."
IDIOT This is form the article EARTH TIDE. I quoted this three times to you by now and your islamphobe fears are preventing you to grasp this.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 "We surely not have the same definition of idiot. Have you ever see conducting fluids contributing to Earth's magnetic field IN the MANTLE?"
IN THE NAMNTLE is the product of your idiotic reasoning.
"Geologists also can learn a lot about the core of our planet by looking at Earth’s magnetic field. The Magnetic field is created by massive circulations of hot liquid mantel beneath the Earth’s surface"
This is from geology for kids, you don't even know that much.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
Nice try! this is what happen when you have a kid websites, lack of accuracy and oversimplification: the mantle isn't liquid at all, pressure and temperature makes it ductile and malleable.
Try something more serious like NOVA website or even wiki.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "Try something more serious like NOVA website or even wiki"
LOL Since I knew you were gonna come up with something like that I also quoted excerpt from a CULA article. LOL that is what happens eventually when you speak without knowing.
Also If I am a lid you are not a pot If I am a pot you are not a lid. Not even close. You make interesting claims to prove your idiocy too by the way.
Fussinated 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fussinated
"LOL that is what happens eventually when you speak without knowing."
parle pour toi, as the french say.
"Also If I am a lid you are not a pot If I am a pot you are not a lid. Not even close. You make interesting claims to prove your idiocy too by the way."
Illusory idiocy, unfortunately to you.
silveren777 10 months ago
@Fussinated
I'm going to be clear: your text from UCLA tells you the phenomenon of convection requires the motion of material. After that, it explains how convection occurs in fluids, then adds it occurs in a "solid mantle" as well.
See? Only a misinterpretation of this text could give you "mantle=>fluid".
So, you just proved how fool and ignorant you are.. and the funniest thing is that you reproach me with your own faults, confirming your hypocrisy (or strong delusion).
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777 "I'm going to be clear"
OK I will be clear to you too. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Now why I say this? Simple,
1-) Mantle is a layer in which liqud material rises then becomes cold and falls back and melts again. So, your SOLID MANTLE refers to UPPER MANTLE.
"The Mantle is considered fluid, with motions driven by heat generated by radioactive decay (both within itself and from within the central Core)." (C Johnson, Physicist, Physics Degree from Univ of Chicago) >
Fussinated 10 months ago
@Fussinated
Crackpot! The mantle is considered as fluid because it flows in geological time-scale, but it's not a liquid at all, it's ductile, even the lower mantle. For instance about CMB, the boundary zone between lower mantle and outer core, a university says
"Earth's internal structure changes abruptly where the SOLID rock of the MANTLE meets the swirling molten iron of the outer core. " from UniSci.
silveren777 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silveren777 "Crackpot! The mantle is considered as fluid because it flows in geological time-scale, but it's not a liquid at all, it's ductile, even the lower mantle."
IDIOT, Mantle is not homogenous, and read before you respond, UPPER MANTLE is differnt than mantle.
"For instance about CMB, the boundary zone between lower mantle and outer core, a university says"
THER IS NO SUCH THING AS LOWER MANTLE. Sto trying argue like pushcart salesman.
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 > "There exists substantial evidence that the lowermost mantle has an influence over the pattern of magnetic flux leaving Earth's core. Although more controversial, there also exist both paleomagnetic and geomagnetic data compatible with the hypothesis that polarity reversal begins with the near total destruction of the axial dipole, leaving a complex field configuration whose source is the variation of physical properties about the core-mantle boundary. >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777>> If so, it follows that quality, detailed paleomagnetic transition data spanning events over considerable geologic time may provide a unique tool to understanding spatial-temporal aspects of the mantle's effect on core fluid motion and related magnetic flux that reaches Earth's surface. In this talk we explore this possibility given published and newly-analyzed reversal data that span the latter half of the Cenozoic."
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 The previous quote was from (Callahan, C. N.; Geissman, J. W.; Selverstone, J.; Brearley, A. J. (American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2005, abstract #T13A-0424)
Fussinated 10 months ago
@silveren777 5-) Also idiot, you Asked;
"Have you ever see conducting fluids contributing to Earth's magnetic field IN the MANTLE?"
If mantle has an effect on the core's magnetic properties, of course, it will contribute to Earth's magnetic field. However, if you mean, if mantle contributes the CREATION of the magnetic field, no one claimed such a thing. See, it is you who come up with strawman arguments which is not there. >>
Fussinated 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fussinated
Hey! When I told you "There nowhere a clear indication the mantle has such fluids generating Earth's magnetic fields."
indicating the mantle in itself couldn't contribute to the creation of magnetic fields.
you told me I was wrong.
There is no strawman, just HYPOCRISY of a person who try to PITIFULLY justify his words after the fact.
YOUR TRICK FAILED, SORRY GUY!
silveren777 10 months ago