Robittybob1

I can't disagree with that.

Even if the story of Jesus parallels many other stories that in no way means that Jesus is false. I reject your argument even if it seemed extensive the logic behind it must be faulty. Each tale must pass or fail on its own merits.

The set-up seems extraordinary, either that or it a very heavy high powered motor for the vibration (centrifugal force) is going to be a frighteningly large quantity. What formulas are you going to use?

Can it be kept to so few mistakes? it is a very old book that has been copied so many times, there were more mistakes between the various manuscripts than words in the Bible I've heard. That doesn't mean the consistent text can't be worked out. That was only dealing with transcripts, do you think the stories actually happened, if they were just legendary fables are they mistakes or not?

If it is full of mistakes it can't be accurate. One would imply the other wouldn't it?

It is a shame you don't converse with the other contributors of the thread.

I'd love to know if the Pope believes if Christ was raised from the dead?

Does no one understand the thought experiment?

I have been thinking on this one for a few hours now and I would think if the ship could be made more massive without displacing even more water, the Moon would pull it forward. But that is hard to demonstrate for anytime you added weight to the ship it just displaces extra water.

"Why not believe Jesus is real even when there is no evidence?" We don't work like that anymore.

I thought if Moontanman could tell it was a lie and his skin might tense up.

We could hook up the lie detector to you and then get you to read the Gospels and see what happens.

Yes, and I might think you are a genius at robotics.

It may not be evidence that could be used in court cases but it certainly is a clue. Apparently hearsay is evidence that can be used in Court in certain circumstances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

I'm trying to devise an experiment to see who is right? I don't think the issue should just be won or dismissed on words. The Moon creates an ocean tidal bulge on the Earth and it is the gravitational pull between that bulge and the moon that makes the Moon accelerate. Now if at the crest of that tidal bulge was an ocean liner of enormous mass would the Moon be trying to pull it through the water? The liner has it buoyancy issues dealt with, it displaces the exact amount of water as it weighs so there is not more mass involved but just that the ship is able to move forward toward the Moon as one piece. Will it tend to move toward the Moon? Well the tidal bulge moves forward, but will the ship move? The bulge is like a wave, the wave moves forward, the water moves forward too I believe, but only by a small amount. Will the ship move further than the water buoying it up?

Devout Christians are warned about going on Science Forums. So that would be pointless. That is why the question gets asked by atheists and answered by atheists. And neither of those two take any notice of a Gnostic.

They are all good questions and I think it will only come right when we can put some figures on it. The EIC is similar density to the EOC so when one moves in one direction a similar volume of material fills the space. If they were perfect spheres and they moved by 60 km we should be able to work out how much mass is moved. The shaking of the planet is only as much shaking as the moon causes now, it feels like it would be no additional shaking. If it pulled the EIC to a constant 60 km and it stays tidally pulled toward the Moon and the fluid flowed around it laminarly, things would be pretty stable. It might be a different situation if the EOC thickened and the EIC stayed locked into an off-center position that rotated daily, then we would be like an out of balance washing machine on spin cycle. Where I say "crustal plates" I mean the ones that form the ocean floors composed of "basalt". Even though the Earth has something like 70% covered by ocean plates none are more than 200 million years old and the rates of movement mean they have been newly formed. The movement of these plates will be the source of the majority of Earths earthquakes ( proportion times the rapidity of movement equal frequent earthquakes). The ocean crusts are thinner than the continental crust so the Moon and Sun will b flexing the ocean floor to a greater extent. (That is just logical but I can't recall any study on it.) I might have to see if I can confirm that. Where that paper says "the EIC has an eccentricity of 60 km", what is an eccentricity? Is it the amplitude or twice the amplitude? Mabe it is only offset 30 km one way then 30 the other way so the two amplitudes add to 60 km? Orbital eccentricities are just a ratio and have no dimensions but here he gives a distance so why does it get called eccentricity? "3. Physics The distance between the center of an eccentric and its axis." so if that is the definition it is like wave height measured from zero point, rather than two amplitudes added together.

You'd probably find that in the foreword the author would have said whether it was true story or fictional. I don't think Genesis starts off say it is true. But in Peter 2 the author claims the Gospel of Jesus is true.

It is interesting to read that. Thanks arc. The dimensions of the EOC are quite large and I don't see much trouble in having the EIC off set by 60 km. The velocity that the liquid would have to undergo would only be a fraction faster than stationary. One thing that surprises me is that the Bernoulli and Venturi effects have not been applied, the flow of the EOC liquid would help to draw the EIC off center. Now that is a weird one if it did work for it seems to happen in small scale experiments. The molten metal was said to have a viscosity less than water. It surprised me when I read that but I have had no experience with molten metals to confirm that. Try this experiment (a variation of the one described earlier): In this experiment you have a bowl of water and stir it gently to get a good clean circulation and instead of the tin of peaches placed off-center you used another smaller cylindrical container in the middle part-filled with water so that it is still floating but only just missing the bottom, you might find that the laminar flow through the venturi side of the off-center middle object draws it toward the outer wall of the large bowl. Consider this: Will the same effect happen to the EIC if was off-center?

The word Moon appears once in the article. So the gravitational effects of the Moon on the EIC do not appear to have been considered. Can anyone explain why they thought it was "Eastward in the equatorial plane"? What is East of the center on one side is West of the center on the other side of the Earth. I'm a bit confused. There is an "Appendix A" section dealing with the history. Barta in the 1970 first proposed it to be off center ... . I might have to tackle it from the history first to get used to the jargon used, not being into this realm of physics covered in the paper.

I haven't got time to paw through the articles right now but if the word "Moon" does not appear in the article not all the gravitational effects have been considered adequately.

I like the idea of setting up the mechanical experiment and I have drawn a little diagram and it certainly could be built. It would be so good if the liquid was able to be polarized to represent a current. Imagine if it produced a magnetic field in the inner ball!

That should really get the keyboards rattling. What do you mean by breathing? what is this about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core is this associated with the off-center displacement?

I used to argue that you could use Einstein's equation to this situation, but I was never that good at relativistic maths. I'll be following the answers here with interest.

What I believe and what you may have missed is that the seismological data would have indicated the width of the EIC but not necessarily its exact position. It is so easy just to think it is nicely in the middle, dead center, of the Earth, but the math of the situation clearly shows there is an off center position where the buoyancy matches the gravitational pull from the moon. I'm stuck but I haven't given up yet.