Robittybob1

I'm not sure if that proves anything, but it is a good point. Why be martyred for someone who isn't real?

You feel as if you are spoon feeding me! I say the paper is right, you say that it is not correct but can't show why, and I'm trying to help you understand your own thoughts.

They were very schematic diagrams. With the Earth we have a strange situation of a solid core surrounded by molten metal. The core part can move within that molten material. The gravitational attraction of the moon is also pulling the dense core to an offset position within that molten material.

At least you have attempted to critique the paper but to me your criticism seems to have missed a vital point, that being the Moon. it is the balance between buoyancy and the gravitational attraction of the EIC to the Moon. Do you feel like making a statement about that. I too wondered this offset hasn't been picked up by seismologists so when you seem to have put up a better criticism I'll email the author and get his response.

Does it ever occupy the nucleus?

Could you fault their physics? Where was his reasoning wrong? I read it again and nothing seemed glaringly wrong but it would need a better physician than myself to critique the physics. "Earth’s Inner Core Periodic Motion due to Pressure Difference Induced by Tidal Acceleration" Martin Wolf http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.3960.pdf I see he has his email there so we could email him.

"Virtually" I might have been more correct to say "practically" but not exactly Zero velocity. If we make it too hard to get to infinity how did they ever define the mass of a stationary electron. If an electron was (a meter?? Unsure of actual distance) away from where it came from it would be in all intents be at infinity. I must refresh as to how they weighed a stationary electron.

This free electron is virtually stationary isn't it?

How does the quantum Theory explain absorption of photons?

The following is my personal explanation: Yes this Westward or Eastward motion is in relation to the observer standing on the Crust of the spinning Earth, so forget about the Earth's rotation just call that speed zero. the Outer Core seems to move Westward but the inner core Eastward. Now it isn't some sort of perpetual motion machine with the electromagnetic fields driving the motion and the motion driving the electromagnetic fields. No, the point that has been missed is the offset by a few kilometers of the EIC. It is held in this position by the Moon and the Sun. This offset is the cause of the currents in the molten Earth Outer Core (EOC). This offset adds to the braking effect to the rotation of the Earth. The real energy for the magnetic field comes from the Earth's rotation, which has slowed down since the formation of the Earth from about 5 hours down to 24 hours/day today, so you can see it has drastically slowed, by a factor of nearly 5 times.The braking has contributed to the heating of the EIC and EOC. Without the Moon, the Sun would have been only able to set up a magnetic field but one much weaker. OK I have not been able to explain the magnetic pole reversals, but if my theory is correct about the magnetic field as a consequence of the displaced EIC the only thing that could change the polarity is a change in the polarity of the EOC. Is it possible to be sometimes predominantly positively and other times predominantly negatively charged? I am stuck for an explanation for that? The Sun reverses its polarity every 13 years or thereabouts, if we could only explain that!

No that is wrong, for the tidal bulge stays constantly toward the MOON it is not fluctuating. OK to be very accurate you could drag the tin of peaches around at the same degree of offset once every 29 times the water representing the outer core circulates. But that won't teach you anything extra, The two studies are independent of course and might not say anything about what the other has found. If you think my demonstration isn't representative, I'd say you are slightly on the argumentative side, for it definitely is representative of the fluid passing around the equatorial parts of the EIC. Who has tried it? Well even without trying it what would you find?

All I can say is that there were studies that showed the outer core was moving slower than the Earth's rotation. I would have linked to them in the Physics Forum thread discussing the Earth's magnetic field. So I wanted to see what sort of situation gives you this fast and slow combination. Demonstration: Get large circular bowl and fill with water to about 75 mm deep, get a heavy cylindrical shape (Tin of peaches for example) Sprinkle pepper in the water so you can monitor flow patterns. Stir the water so it circulates in the large basin/bowl - this represents the spinning Earth, now 1. put the tin in the middle and observe the flow. 2. Put the tin off center and observe the flow pattern. Try it and tell me what difference the off center central mass makes please? Now this Q&A gives a clue and a link to a paper. http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/402/why-does-earths-outer-core-rotate-in-the-opposite-direction-to-the-inner-core You can tell me if you agree now that you have done your little experiment.

Are you saying the physics was wrong? Negatively buoyant means denser than the Outer core does it? No I'm not the author. You are thinking in terms where it is like a boat on the water but from the very center it is weightless for there is no gravity acting on it until it gets off center, and it will move to an off center position till the gravitational forces balance. Well that is how I remember the logic of it.

It is a basic physical concept as far as I can see. It is the physical attraction between the Earth's Inner Core (EIC) and the Moon. Just like the Moon creates tide and land tides, it also moves the core. Because the core is in a weightless situation and surrounded by very liquid molten metal it is able to move these distances according to those calculations. They might be wrong but has anyone of note said they were wrong?

Can you prove that? Can you show that that study was wrong?

I'd never seen that word before "Polaron" OK I'll look it up tomorrow. Nite all.

I'm still old fashioned enough to think of electrons orbiting nucleus' (yet the more modern approach is to think of the electron as a type of probability cloud. ) So when I think of it, I liken electrons to the planets where the ones closer in to the sun travel at the fastest rates. So each time an electron absorbs a photon and jumps up to a higher orbital it actually gains energy but it slows down. The reverse happens when the electron emits a photon. It drops down orbitals and speeds up. Now my thoughts maybe out with the ark, but I will start the ball rolling. [A person I used to work with was at university in Copenhagen with Niels Bohr, the person who starting thinking along these lines.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

I was trying to locate information on the authorship of the Gospel of John, without much success, but I did come across the martyrdom of Polycarp "and they tried to burn him at the stake in front of a large crowd. But the flames didn't burn him and they speared him through instead and the blood put the fire out". How much blood do these saints have? Sad story and I just hope our following Christ doesn't end the same, but it might, for in the spirit the Lord said to me "Are you willing to die for me?" To which I replied "Yes Lord but not just yet". Martin Luther King paid the price but what an amazing honour he gets in the USA now, that amazes me every year and I don't even live there.

So did your microtubules tell fibs in the OP? What quantum effects were going on in your consciousness to allow that to happen?

I'll see if I can find the answer sometime. I have always found theology too difficult, so even though I call myself a Christian I tend to think "well I'll leave questions of Theology to God". I just believe Jesus was real (backed up by my vision of text), and I look at what he said (supposedly) and try and apply them in everyday life.

Without sounding "preachy" do you think "maybe" will be good enough for "salvation"? Or is it just "getting close"? The way I looked at this problem was saying "Jesus if it was so important to believe in you, how come you didn't take care of the historicity of your existence?". It seems unfair to have to believe in someone whose existence becomes in question.

It was noted that somewhere it was stated that "salvation" was dependent on admitting that Jesus was real. I can't remember where just now, but reading your post I'm not sure if a "maybe" will suffice. It is getting close.

yes please

Have you got a club. I'd like to join your club.