Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Justatruthseeker]

Or it is an accurate graph of the potential as a function of radius.

Except we have already shown the potential decreases with radius.....

As the gravitational force decreases with radius below the surface......

As the curvature decreases as mass decreases below the surface.......

As density decreases below the surface past the point of greatest curvature.....

 

[Polymath257]

Except we have already shown the potential decreases with radius.....

Which is what the picture shows.

As the gravitational force decreases with radius below the surface......

The magnitude of it, yes.

As the curvature decreases as mass decreases below the surface.......

how are you measuring curvature?

As density decreases below the surface past the point of greatest curvature.....

The density is pretty close to constant once you get past the crust. that is clear from the graph of the force you gave.

Do you claim that the potential is actually largest at the surface of the earth? you realize that would give a force that always points away from the surface, right? or was the claim it is smallest at the surface, which would give a force always pointing towards the surface?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can show you equations that take many points and draw straight lines between them ignoring the curvature of a circle and still get the correct answer.

Just because you can then ignore it as having any curvature won’t change the fact that it’s a circle......

This is exactly what you do, take momentary segments of the velocity at any given time so it is constant. Exactly like calculating the length of a curve by dividing it into a large number of segments, each of which is approximately straight, then adding up the lengths using Pythagoras’s theorem.

Each of those segments still has curvature that won’t go away no matter how many segments you divide it into. But the error introduced gets smaller as the number of segments get larger.

This is what you do to calculate the elapsed time on an accelerating clock. Divide the path into small segments that you can work with. And just as with the straight line segments where the curvature never becomes zero, but can be ignored, so too the acceleration of the clock never becomes zero, but we can ignore that too.

You can’t prove the clock postulate. It’s never been proven. You just divide the acceleration into small enough segments that it can be ignored, like the curvature of a line can be ignored when we divide it into straight line segments.

Doesn’t make the curvature zero, and doesn’t make the acceleration zero.....

But that’s why you have no reason for clocks to actually slow....

Nope, we are discussing Einstein's relativity. Those are the only equations that apply. Unfortunately you do not even understand the simpler Newtonian concepts that we have been discussing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except we have already shown the potential decreases with radius.....

As the gravitational force decreases with radius below the surface......

As the curvature decreases as mass decreases below the surface.......

As density decreases below the surface past the point of greatest curvature.....

The point of greatest curvature is at the center of the object. Did you not see the graph that I linked? Or course you did not seem to understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is what the picture shows.



The magnitude of it, yes.



how are you measuring curvature?



The density is pretty close to constant once you get past the crust. that is clear from the graph of the force you gave.

Do you claim that the potential is actually largest at the surface of the earth? you realize that would give a force that always points away from the surface, right? or was the claim it is smallest at the surface, which would give a force always pointing towards the surface?

I am pretty sure that he does not the concept of a derivative. I already told him it looked as if he were conflating slope and curvature.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Which is what the picture shows.

The picture is false. GPE goes from More to less as mass increases. Mass decreases below the surface.

The magnitude of it, yes.

Because the curvature decreases.

how are you measuring curvature?

By the way any curvature due to mass is measured. The amount the moon curves spacetime is less than the amount the earth curves it. It has less mass....

The density is pretty close to constant once you get past the crust. that is clear from the graph of the force you gave.

That’s their belief. And they’ll stick to it regardless that the data contradicts the claim of greater density down to the outer core....

Do you claim that the potential is actually largest at the surface of the earth? you realize that would give a force that always points away from the surface, right? or was the claim it is smallest at the surface, which would give a force always pointing towards the surface?

Why would I claim that? How you get that from density being greater near the surface is beyond me.

What part of potential being greater away from a source of mass didn’t you understand to attempt that sad bit of obfuscation?

You tell me since the gravitational force decreases in magnitude both outwards and inwards from the surface......

All the data contradicts an increasing density beyond the point of greatest curvature beneath the surface....

Above a sphere, “down” is every direction pointing towards the surface. At the center, “down” is every direction pointing towards the surface....

Once beneath the surface we encounter a unique aspect that does not exist in normal everyday occurrence. Mass is no longer just below you, but on all sides of you.

This is why a mountain exerts a sideways force on you as you stand next to it’s base.

Schiehallion experiment - Wikipedia

This is why your theory of density failed to match the data. The rock is being pulled in all directions, not compressed in just one as one goes deeper.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The point of greatest curvature is at the center of the object. Did you not see the graph that I linked? Or course you did not seem to understand it.

Of course I saw your fantasy where curvature is due to mass but increases anyways as the mass causing the curvature decreases.....

Fantasy is easily recognized....

 

[Polymath257]

This is why your theory of density failed to match the data. The rock is being pulled in all directions, not compressed in just one as one goes deeper.

What gravitational force do you experience if you are *inside* a spherical shell of constant density?

Another question to test understanding.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What gravitational force do you experience if you are *inside* a spherical shell of constant density?

Another question to test understanding.

The same as you would experience on its outside. It’s just now attracting you from all directions at the same time, which results in no net force in any direction.

I know you expect zero, but I realize the concept of balanced forces versus no force is probably beyond you.

And if we replaced one section with a higher density material?????

 

[Polymath257]

The same as you would experience on its outside. It’s just now attracting you from all directions at the same time, which results in no net force in any direction.

I know you expect zero, but I realize the concept of balanced forces versus no force is probably beyond you.

OK, so what acceleration would you experience from the force(s)?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

OK, so what acceleration would you experience from the force(s)?

Acceleration in all directions equally. Unless you moved one foot to one direction, then increasing acceleration would continue in that direction until you impacted the “surface”......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But remember. Acceleration slows clocks. Or just faster velocity in your fantasy world. Even if it leaves you with no cause to effect.

So since you would be going slower you would not be younger, but older.....

 

[Polymath257]

Acceleration in all directions equally. Unless you moved one foot to one direction, then increasing acceleration would continue in that direction until you impacted the “surface”......

Wrong. Velocity would continue, not acceleration.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wrong. Velocity would continue, not acceleration.

Wrong.....

The section you are approaching now exerts more force on you as the opposite section now exerts less force. Your acceleration would increase....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I saw your fantasy where curvature is due to mass but increases anyways as the mass causing the curvature decreases.....

Fantasy is easily recognized....

Oh my! So even Newtonian gravity is beyond you. This may take some work.

By the way, even if the Earth was a shell GPE would not go down below the surface. By the way, why did you not admit that you can't do calculus?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But remember. Acceleration slows clocks. Or just faster velocity in your fantasy world. Even if it leaves you with no cause to effect.

So since you would be going slower you would not be younger, but older.....

Einstein disagrees. He says that velocity does so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But remember. Acceleration slows clocks. Or just faster velocity in your fantasy world. Even if it leaves you with no cause to effect.

So since you would be going slower you would not be younger, but older.....

Einstein disagrees. He says that velocity does so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong.....

The section you are approaching now exerts more force on you as the opposite section now exerts less force. Your acceleration would increase....

Didn't you just say "no net force" not to long ago? You are not being consistent.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh my! So even Newtonian gravity is beyond you. This may take some work.

By the way, even if the Earth was a shell GPE would not go down below the surface. By the way, why did you not admit that you can't do calculus?

Only you who understands that balanced forces means no net force, then becomes confused as the force in one direction decreases means no increased force in the opposite direction.

The force to one side away from your direction of movement decreases with your increasing distance. As the force in your direction of movement increases with decreasing distance.

You do understand that this is why if you are in between two bodies in space of equal mass you feel equal attraction to both. Then as you move towards either one you continue to accelerate towards that body as the force from the other body lessens and the other increases.

I’m afraid it’s only you that doesn’t understand Newtonian gravity.....

You would have us all believe as I approached planet A away from equal planet mass B, my velocity would remain constant....

So far from reality it’s not worth trying to correct your mistakes.... it would be useless....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Didn't you just say "no net force" not to long ago? You are not being consistent.

I’m being consistent. As you depart from one wall it’s attraction is now less and it’s force is now less, while the other is now more. It’s you that’s not being consistent......

You confuse no net force from balanced forces meaning no net force from unbalanced forces.....