The Earth's Molten Core

Never mind, Yuval is just restating the 'is it a puzzle' question.

Part of that puzzle is the time line - and that comes down to does "7 days" mean "days" or "steps"?

In essence both camps agree it is 'designed' - and to quote (approximately) Steve Jobs; 'Design is not about how it looks, but about how it works'

Therefore; if it works, someone designed it.

So it follows, as it apparently works, there was a designer?

A designer, especially an almighty one, can lay out a stage in which self-propagation is possible. He set the stage to let things take their own course, let random, given available energy shape into order.

It is easier for us to assume, that this complex world was designed, manufactured, cranked, and released into motion for a pre-determined venue, because this is how we see ourselves do it if we had unlimited resources.

This way, we in fact attribute our limitations to God. Furthermore, it reveals that "our" God is an entity we created in our mind, limited by the scope of our imagination, rather than The Creator of the universe, reality, and life.

If we honestly thought of God as Almighty and Omnipresent, we wouldn't limit it's powers to the bounds of our imagination, and instead, would attribute the depth, beauty and scope of the universe to both it's presence and ability.

Life doesn't need a designer - it only needs a creator for the preset conditions to it's emergence, existence and development.

• "It is easier for us to assume, that this complex world was designed, manufactured, cranked, and released into motion for a pre-determined venue, because this is how we see ourselves do it if we had unlimited resources."

Yep and it was created by Slartibartfast who loved doing the crinkly bits around Norway and got an award for it, along with his race of planet building aliens. They in fact built it under contract for a race of pan dimensional creatures that strangely look very much like mice, to find the question to the answer to life the universe and everything which was calculated over several billion years by the mega computer Deep Thought to be forty two.

So there you have it the answer to this whole messed up thread is

and that's all there is to it.

Now everybody stop messing about and work out what the question to the answer is before the bloody Vogons come along and demolish the Earth to make way for the intergalactic highway construction project.

Agreed. What was it ?

"...It's not altzheimer's if you don't remember where your watch is. It is - if you don't remember what it's for..." - Man Dehoo

Do the continents float about and collide, like slag in a crucible? Episode 45 on CR4

The question to the answer, as revealed in the later of The Great Books, set in an earlier time when the Probability Drive went into reverse, is:

Seven times Six

or was it Six times Seven.

Well, it definitely wasn't Seven-of-Nine.....

Run that in base thirteen. Think you'll find it's six times nine.

The Son of Man has returned!

Now we know why the initiated have claimed that thirteen is unlucky...to prevent anyone else stumbling upon the key to all knowledge.

All hail JDG!!!

masu, you know I respect you greatly, but I have to point out that you have disproved your own argument in this post.

Firstly I want to point out that I'm ambivalent on the religion/science divide; I don't see why the scientific (as explained by Yuval) knowledge can't, in time when we understand more, end up showing us there was "God"* behind it all, even if they were as mortal as us. I have had personal experiences that I interpret as "supernatural" in the sense of "not yet explained by human science" that means I believe there are things/knowledge beyond our historical or current understanding - and that religions have all, at some point in their history, sought to explain these. Thus religions contain truths (empirical evidence), or the essence of truth, surrounded by conjecture...or hypotheses and theorums, perhaps. The error has been in not allowing these to be updated in the light of new knowledge and evidence (Earth orbiting sun or vice versa, anyone?).

Thanks for reading this far....

In your post you use the proven similarities of DNA (humans share 60% of their DNA with cabbage!) to argue for an autonomous probablistic evolution. Then you liken it to the evolution of software - a process that has many deus (deii ?) ex machina directing it.

The logic of your argument breaks down at that point, since the two underlying processes are, in your contention, different: the former "random", the second directed. I don't know if the former is indeed random or was directed, but I have the following questions:

Why does evolution preclude "God" or "God" preclude evolution? Why couldn't evolution be the means by which "God" created life (the universe and everything)?

I'm not saying this is the truth, just that as a working hypothesis, it hasn't yet been disproved.

Incidently, I read today that scientists are using rat brain cells to control robots. I read earlier this week that engineers at Bristol University have developed robots that gather their own energy supplies (food). By standing on the sholders of the giants in previous generations, we are slowly learning how to manipulate life...and in a way create a new form. That makes us The Creator...."God" of the robots.....

*Note: The word "God" has be used in this post as a label for an as yet known outside influence. It should not be read to imply any religious significance, neither am I imbuing it with any "supernatural" overtones.

"...(humans share 60% of their DNA with cabbage!)... - not only that, but humans have about half the genome size of an Amoeba - All that DNA - and they are content at being a microbe and staying a microbe - otherwise they would tend to evolve over time, into the self-satisfied, should I say smug "super-creatures" we think we are

Fine then.

How would you define a fossil of an animal no longer in the species list ?

Interesting.

So how does that vary from this 'common starting point' process?

"After the Masoretic text however was published, dating creation around 4000 BC became common, and was received with wide support. Proposed calculations of the date of creation, using the Masoretic from the 10th century - 18th century include: Marianus Scotus (4192 BC), Maimonides (4058 BC), Henri Spondanus (4051 BC), Benedict Pereira (4021 BC), Louis Cappel (4005 BC), James Ussher (4004 BC), Augustin Calmet (4002 BC), Isaac Newton (4000 BC), Johannes Kepler (April 27, 3977 BC) [based on his book Mysterium], Petavius (3984 BC), Theodore Bibliander (3980 BC), Christen Sørensen Longomontanus (3966 BC), Melanchthon (3964 BC), Martin Luther (3961 BC), John Lightfoot (3960 BC), Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide (3951 BC) Joseph Justus Scaliger (3949 BC), Christoph Helvig (3947 BC), Gerardus Mercator (3928 BC), Matthieu Brouard (3927 BC), Benito Arias Montano (3849 BC), Andreas Helwig (3836 BC), David Gans (3761 BC) and Gershom ben Judah (3754 BC)"

credit Wiki

Isn't this is also the same staring point?

But one must admit that it is remarkably tight age agreement, compared to say carbon 14 dating - which of course, none of the above had knowledge of at the time.

It does leave me wondering that if it was all created, more or less, for Man to puzzle out, due to his given inquiring mind, is it a test?

If so, what of? Proactive inquiry (use of gift) or Non-use of gift?

And what if this is part of the puzzle?

"aura of legitimacy" (my emphasis)

PMSL - beautifully done Yuval!

That's what's needed - recharged auras

Your gainsaying colloquy is fustian and prevaricate. Your polemic maundering is bombastic. I'm usually not very loquacious and not trying to wheedle you or insinuate anything, I just want badinage schmooze. This is no teteatete or rodomontade reply. I tend to be a wag, but will be taciturn now. You can thank the April 2010 issue of Reader's Digest for this repartee.

I'm going to have your subscription to Readers Digest cancelled, it took me half an hour with a dictionary to work out what the smeg you were on about.

By the way according to the dictionaries I used teteatete isn't a real word, you should have used something like tit for tat, retaliatory, reactive, punitive or retributive instead.

Nothing escapes your keen eye

tête-à-tête

In French: 'Head-To-Head' - meaning: "Just between us two"

Aha, the punctuation makes all the difference!

Get this: I dumped the transcript into Google Translator, got the Hebe version, dumped it back into the translator, and out came:

"...Colloquy your appeal pretentious prevaricate. Your controversy maundering bombastic. I do not usually very talkative and tries to blackmail you or imply anything, I just want to suck up jokes. It is not bragging teteatete or reply. I tend to be a clown, but will be silent now. You can thank the April 2010 issue of Reader's Digest for this repartee..."

or:

שיג ושיח לערער שלך יומרני לומר חצי אמת. גולש לפטפוט הפולמוס שלך בומבסטי. אני בדרך כלל לא פטפטן מאוד ולא מנסה לסחוט אותך או לרמוז כלום, אני רק רוצה להתחנף הלצות. אין זה teteatete או להשיב התרברבות. אני נוטה להיות ליצן, אבל יהיה שתקן עכשיו. אתה יכול להודות סוגיית אפריל 2010 של דייג'סט עבור תשובה שנונה זו.

PS: In hindsight - Hopfully by your kind permission, StandardSguy

Interesting. Well it's too late to ask permission, but I forgive you. Your translation did prevaricate. No wonder it is so difficult to read ancient religious texts. Something gets lost in the translation. Was your translator written in an oriental country by chance?

Here are the RD's translations:

gainsay - deny

badinage - playful back and forth

taciturn - quiet

wheedle - persuade with flattery

loquacious - talkative

wag - joker

polemic - opinionated attack

schmooze - chat

maunder - ramble

rodomontade - bragging

repartee - witty reply

bombastic - pompous

prevaricate - tell a half truth

colloquy - dialog

fustian - high flown

teteatete - private conversation

insinuate - artfully suggest

For masu:

smeg

As I said, The English transcript (from your post) was translated into Hebrew, then the Hebrew result was put back again into the translator to get it back into English - which was the (latter) posted result.

Mind you, the translator is a Bot. Google Translator is an automatic computerised translation application, I would say some lame version of Artificial Intelligence, but not a human, "live" translation.

Translating a transcript back and forth is an old technical writer's trick to assess the quality and integrity of a translator. This time I applied it to a machine...

My interpretation came out something like this:

• Your contradictory dialog is inflated language and creates an incorrect impression. Your controversial argument that talks in a rambling, foolish, or meaningless way is bombastic. I'm usually not very talkative and not trying to persuade you or insinuate anything, I just want banter and to chat idly. This is no tit for tat or boasting reply. I tend to be a wag, but will be silent now.

Bloody hell English is a complicated language, you can completely screw up the meaning without even going through a translator twice.

By the way this is the smeg I was using.

WAG has me somewhat baffled.

Stand accused, Sir, of being deliberately obtuse.

Wag can also be:

• ...
  
• A noun that describes a witty pundit (expert) or commentator
• ...
  

You'ld have to be a right Angle to agree with me. I remain firmly seated !.

A man enters a restaurant and orders a dish of cod. The plate arrives, and he starts digging. His face get furious-red and he calls the waiter:

"What's wrong with you guys? - I come here and only here because I know your fish is fresh from today's harvest - this cod is stale !"

"I'm sorry sir, - I can't understand what happened - we only serve fresh fish here"

"I know !, that's why I always come here for my cod. You tell me what happened - last month I ate here a fresh cod right out the barrel"

"But sir, this fish is from the exact same barrel !"

And that's it ?

Trust me, no Brit need further inuiendo.I'd call him, a naive a tratoutous faggot, but I like him too much.

Faggot (food)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Faggots, gravy, mashed potatoes and marrowfat processed peas

Faggots are a traditional dish in the UK,^[1][2] especially South and Mid Wales and the Midlands of England.^[3][4][5] It is made from meat off-cuts and offal, especially pork.^[3] A faggot is traditionally made from pig's heart, liver and fatty belly meat or bacon minced together, with herbs added for flavouring and sometimes bread crumbs. The mixture is shaped in the hand into balls, wrapped round with caul fat (the omentum membrane from the pig's abdomen), and baked. Another variation of faggot is Pig's fry wrapped in pig's caul: the pig's fry and boiled onions are minced (ground) together then mixed with breadcrumbs or cold boiled potatoes, seasoned with sage, mixed herbs and pepper, all beaten together and then wrapped in small pieces of caul to form a ball. These are then baked in the oven and are usually served cold.^[6] The first use in print cited in the Oxford English Dictionary is in 1851, from Thomas Mayhew, although this appears to be a calzone- or pasty-like dish, with an outer wrapper of caul, covering a filling of mixed pork offal. This was in London.

Sooo.....that's the secret of the Earth's molten core, then?

Molten trilobites

_{(pre edit response )}

Too sneaky - I can't cunt'n'paste that !

"I do not like cheap disco-shirts from under mama..."

"...what is eaten in the wardrobe"

_{Brought to you by the Miracle of Google Translate.}

Sorry Squibble, it goes something like 'cheap shirt lifters' .... 'eating in the closet'.

A little know saying -; what happens in the basemont loos of Parliament stays in those areas. No. I won't tell you how I know, though in other parts of the world, there's some serious pillow bighting going on.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Earths molten core has baffles.

Though, nice theory, as it would explain a right lot.

GA

I'm no geologist (nor an astrophysicist), but it would make some sense to assume that if there is viscosity present between core and mantle, the resulting drag would (given enough time) equalise their velocity-difference into none.

Any difference in spin-velocity (in the first place) could be a consequence of a difference in mass between two distinct "solid" bodies, since their initial momentum was (assumed to be) one and the same, during the accumulation and spin of the total mass.

I may be way off here - Does it make any sense ?

I could be way off - if it all popped into existence at once, and not developed into it's present state over a period of, say, billions of years.

Here we go again...

Is it only me, or are we going in circles ?

It seems to me that the earth's magnetic field interacts with the sun's magnetic field as the earth goes around the sun. Magnetism could then turn the iron core of the earth. So it makes sense to me that it could always be going faster.

Congratulations StandardsGuy for getting the thread back on track.

That's a very interesting concept, that the interactions of the Earth's and Sun's magnetic fields is responsible for the rotation of the core.

However, approximately once every 11 years the Sun's magnetic field reverses so wouldn't that counteract any rotational effect the magnetic field would have imparted in the previous 11 or so years?

During the reversal process the sun exhibits more sunspots than usual and this is called the solar maximum. The next solar max and reversal of the magnetic field is predicted to happen between January and May 2013 so at the moment were in the work up period to the next max so we should be seeing a steady increase in the number of sunspots over the next 12 to 14 months. Also going by past events this max is predicted to be the weakest since 1928 so we may not see that many sunspots.

While we're on the topic of the sun it's time to start dusting off those solar filters and get your telescopes ready for the next transit of Venus which will occur June 5^th or 6^th 2012 dependant on where you are. For those of us like myself on the east coast of Australia we will have grand stand seating for it with it commencing just after dawn on June 6^th. By the way this is the last chance you will have to see a transit of Venus in our lifetimes because then next one won't happen for over 100 years in 2117.

The empirical evidence of Sol Field Polarity reversal every solar cycle is where???

The solar cycle is somewhat close to the period of Jupiters orbit. As Jupiter is a very significant influence on the position of solar system barycenter could it not also be playing a role in the solar cycle?

Gavilan

This may sound a little far out there; but is it possible that Sol Field is the excitation field for the Geo-dynamo???

Gavilan

Would it be possible for a sphere and a shell of equal specific energy to rotate at the same angular velocity???

I believe the defining equations for moment of inertia make that impossible. Is that correct?

Gavilan

From my first post -

(Let us define Specific Rotational Energy as the rotational kinetic energy per unit mass.)

When you look at the different equations for the moment of inertia of solid spheres and that of a spherical shell; it becomes obvious that the specific rotation energy would be considerable higher for the mantle than the core. This is based not only on the Constant Ratio given in the equations; but also the square relationship of the moment of inertia to radius.

Let us consider whether it would be possible for the core and mantle to be translating energy between one and the other. In this consideration let us give the present epoch spin gradient a positive value; that being where the angular velocity of the core is greater than that of the mantle; thereby setting up a magnetic polarization that we will call negative.

As the energy is transferred from the core to the mantle through viscous friction the spin gradient decreases and the magnetic field begins to collapse; converting the inductive energy to thermal energy through resistive heating; perhaps more so in the liquid interface, thus reducing the viscosity of that liquid interface.

As the spin gradient between core and mantle approaches zero the specific inertial energy of the mantle would cause its rotational velocity to begin to exceed that of the core; thus changing the vector of the spin gradient and reversing the magnetic polarity of the dynamo.

In this new epoch some of the rotational energy of the core and mantle would again be converted to magnetic energy stored in the earth's magnetic field; somewhat cooling the liquid interface and increasing the coefficient of viscous friction of that interface.

This process would result in variations in volcanic activity because of the variations in the viscosity of the liquid core/mantle interface.

Perhaps the Earth, like Mars in the past, will eventually cool with the liquid interface phasing to a solid state thus ending the dynamo process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_Ridge

A little comic relief anyone? _{Reposted with permission from the artist.}

_{Kind of sums up where humans stand.}

Can you get me her phone number, please? _{It's worth a couple of pints .}

1-780-483-2090 and ask for Bikini Babe

"Sorry - you have dialed an incorrect number" - how frustrating is that???

<sigh>....

Tel +44 (0)844 842 4647

"I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago..."

You presume I have some honour

0871 360 2639

"Kids go free" - Whu? Let the little buggers lose in a place like that? Might as well chuck another ocelot on the barbie. All is lost.

Tigers have to eat too - they only got so many