Actually, I indicated that inertia was a property of matter. From
Wikipedia:
I duly note that, despite you having to ask what inertia was, your arrogance still allowed you to fire the insulting and ironic quip
Your statement concerning inertia ia evidence enough that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Response: The problem you are having is that you have jumped into battle without any artilery and now you want to grasp for the artilery after the battle has started instead of having your artilery prepared before engaging in the battle. In other words, you made a statement that mountains do not prevent the earth from shaking and that they do not stabilize the earth without any proof or knowledge before you made the claim but since you've already made the claim and lack the humility to take it back, you're now backpeddling for proof. Nonetheless, as you continue to read the rest of this response, you will witness your argument come to a screeching halt and how illogical your claim was to begin with once and for all. But before that, just bare with me. The clear proof is at the end of the response. I would just like for you to gather YmirGF, The Voice of Reason, Mestemia, and all the others who insisted to side with you about your claim concerning mountains.
Adressing your statement of inertia, again you are wrong. Inertia is not a property of matter. Your own definition proves that. It is you who just stated that inertia is the principle in which to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected by applied force. So your own words demonstrate that inertia is not a property of matter. But this is not the issue. Keep reading. And again, make sure YmirGF, Mestemia, and others are reading along with you. The finale is soon to come.
Quote: themadhair
By being in direct contact with the energy-rich material. For example, when you drop an object it falls by converting gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. This kinetic energy is absorbed into the earth when that object comes into contact with the earth. Essentially, due to the sheer size of the earth, any such energy is greatly diluted within the earths mass.
Response: Amazing. We finally agree on something. The odd thing is that in that statement alone, you are demonstrating and proving my case, not yours. But I don't have time for details. You see, what you are doing is parroting what you have read on some website in an effort to prove your point but because you are so fixated on trying to be right, you're not taking the time to analyze your own evidence. Your whole statement above is proving exactly what mountains do and how they prevent the earth from shaking!! Don't you see!? Don't you seee!!? Nonetheless, keep reading. The end is almost near.
Quote: themadhair
There are two ways this question can be interpreted.
Firstly, this question can be interpreted as asking how can earthquakes happen. Every piece of matter has this property of inertia which makes it resistant to changing movement under a force. The more mass an object has the more resistant it is to changing movement under a force. Energy can be expended upon a piece of matter in order to overcome its inertia this is called doing work and is practically the definition of energy in elementary physics. This is precisely what happens during an earthquake. The potential energy contained within a pressurised plate interaction is suddenly converted into a great deal of kinetic energy (this is similar to when you drop a ball and the gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy) that manifests as vibrations within the material surrounding the release point (called the focus of the earthquake). An earthquake is when the pressure of a plate interaction causes the plates to snap, resulting in the conversion of a large amount of potential pressurise energy into a large amount of kinetic energy overcoming the inertia of the surrounding material in the process.
Response: Listen to what you just said: "The more mass an object has the more resistant it is to changing movement under a force." These are your words, not mine. So if you understand this concept and you understand how mountains are formed, why are you being so stubborn as to realizing that mountains do in fact stabilize the earth and prevent it from shaking? Your own evidence is showing this. Can't you see?! Anyway, keep reading. It's almost over. Is mestemia and YmirGF around yet?
Quote: themadhair
Secondly, this question can be interpreted as asking how the earth can be accelerating* around the sun. The sun is exerting a gravitational force upon the earth which overcomes its inertia.
*I use the term accelerating correctly here even if it looks a little odd. Inertia is resistance to change in motion, which is definitionally acceleration. Change in motion is change in direction and/or speed, other wise known as change in velocity. The earths motion is under constant change due to the suns gravity (basically by moving in a circular orbit the direction of motion is constantly changing) and is hence an acceleration.
You should reread this comment within the context of your claim that mountains prevent the earth from shaking (which at one stage, almost ironically, you tried to redefine as what we feel). If you have no reason for why we the earth should be shaking, then you also have no reason for supposing mountains prevent that shaking. This is simply another contradiction in a long line of contradictions that have all been topped off with contradictions and served with a side order of contradictions.
Response: You need to reread the post. No where in the post have I said that I have no reason why the earth should be shaking and I never claimed that the earth "should" be shaking and you can't quote any post of mine saying otherwise.
Quote: themadhair
I must point out, once again, of the ridiculousness of your demanding double standards.
Response: We are finally at the end. Is it proof that you want from me? Very well. It is you who just used wikipedia as a source of evidence, therefore confirming its reliability as a good source. So here we are and here it is. Once again I can not provide a link for you to simply click on due to the fact that I am on this site through my blackberry phone. Nonetheless, I am sure that if I request the link from a fellow muslim or someone else here they will surely assist me. In the mean time, type in the following in your computer as you see it written on your screen. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain) Once there, under the subtitle "geology", go to the second paragraph and read. In it it says "In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots"(See the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page. 413). Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)". Basically word for word what I originally said in post 210 of page 21 in the "Modern science..." thread where this conversation first began.
You have now been presented with clear cut evidence that mountains do in fact stabilize the earth. The only question left to ask now is whether you and those you decided to agree with you have the humility to confess this truth.
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
