Barry Flannery, Are you interested in the composition of the Moon? after all it is rather interesting. DwayneD.L.Rabon
Dwayne, I know damn well what its composition is. You're the one who would need to know. You haven't a clue about planet formation only a simple understanding of physics where lighter materials float on the next one so now you're deducing that the internal dynamics of the earth are bound by this statement completely ignoring the fact that the gases would explosively combine to form new compounds let alone be mixed around violently in the massive cauldron that is our earth. Jules Verne was a fiction writer. His idea is not real. The earth is solid. It cannot be anything else or it would collapse. Want proof? Get a big stone, hold it above your head, let it go. If it hits you on the head it will show 2 things. One, you are a complete idiot. Two, solid rock can't hang on mid air. Barry
Well Barry to me it sounds like your a little ego centric, i just asked if you were interested in the moons composition. Since you say that i need to know do you care to give some exsplantions as to the earth or moons comosition. You said something about a little physics, seems you might have your head up your ass. Do clouds float in the sky, Barry? I would also have to ask what kind of Chesse it is. Is it Swiss, Jack, American, Colby, Cheddear,Parmassian, Sharp,or Medium Chesse? I followed the links from you post and got in contact with your mother, she said that you had to pick up your reports from the grocery market, that you had been busy in the dariy department and that you would issue us a statment as soon as possible, and untill then she could only issue the information that you had announced it your public address be for congress and Nasa, " the moon is covered in parmassian chesse". we had not read any report of this and so where amazed at these findings, we had often wandered around are 10 ft lens kelidoscope wondering just what those specks where. DwayneD.L.Rabon
Well Dwayne to me it sounds like you're a little delusional and/or very poorly educated. Earth's composition ; Atmosphere, Crust, Mantles, Cores. Moon's composition ; Anorthositic Crust, Mantles, Cores. Petty insults mean nothing to me. You still fail to understand the most basic and rudimentary physics. Go read some science books not science-fiction. Yes evaporated water vapour weighing negligible amounts of mass will float on air yet even if the balance is pushed a tiny amount (saturation) the bulk of the cloud will fall as rain. Hundreds of trillions of billions of tons of dense rock will not float.
Well First off Barry Flannery your the one who introduced the insults, and odd commentary. it Also seems that you continue to add item to your list. I am sure that for some sone that is not of the informed that something they are not familuar with sound delusional. For me people that think along the line of a iron core, are people that have not really thought things out too well. The subject is the earths compostions: Since you have exspressed your self has having some advantage you should exsplain your concept, or give us some refference to your understanding. You can exclaim your exspertise based on physics or complicated math works thats fine, but keep in mind that such math is complicated and a great deal of error exist within the assumptions used by some physics math. So don't go getting ego centric about any degree you have in physics, thinking that you are better than the less math sciences or reasoning. physics still can not beat basic addition and subtraction. DwayneD.L.Rabon
Just what do you mean? do you mean as a distribution to across the entir earth or moon. Or do you mean all the unrelated comments DwayneD.L.Rabon
Translation : I have little or no understanding of physics whatsoever and my mathematical capabilities cease after basic addition and subtraction. Now, for your theory. I know exactly what you are talking about. You are referring to the estimated composition of the earth based along the same lines as crustal abundance in ppm for example gold is found 1 ppm (it's not but this is just an example). You are using similar logic for the internals of the earth except applying your understanding of the composition which is a fair enough assumption in IDEAL cases. The ''IDEAL'' case is the following; 1. The earth is completely inert and does not move after one major ''settling'' event. 2. The earth is now cold and completely solid 3. All materials inside the earth are existing in elemental form and have not combined Problems with the ''IDEAL'' case; 1. The earth is not inert. It is a giant ball of moving magma with a central spinning iron core. The heat and the pressure are simple inconceivable. 2. Partially answered by point 1 above. Your settling event could only take place if everything ideally stopped after a certain time. But this is not the case, look at convection currents and volcanos even, continental drift. 3. Most of the materials inside the earth do not exist as native elements, for example the higher parts of the mantle can loosely be referred to as rock for example granite. I have not done the mathematics regarding your estimations of gold and other metals but it would not surprise me. There is enough gold in the centre of the earth to cover the surface of the earth knee-deep. Again this is basic physics, heaviest will sink to the bottom. All of this is documented in detail with exact figures on many sites. Check wikipedia even for detailed information regarding planetary structure. You simply cannot have air under the crust. For example look at oil-a LIQUID (more likely to stay in the under than air). Oil fields contain a porous rock (lots of holes) with oil inside of it the holes. The pressure is so great (even at a few Km) that all these tiny bits of oil are explosively forced out of the rock and blown up to the surface through the oil pipeline. Imagine what would happen if you had your atmosphere 400 MILES below the crust. Imagine the pressures. For reference, a 1m cube of rock ways ca. 3 tons. Hopefully this will further your understanding and I strongly suggest you do a few simple google search on ''planetary geology''. I also would like to apologise for rudeness but you must see it from my perspective to see someone making such bold and rash claims without any evidence nor without reviewing current theories, it is spitting in the faces of all those who dedicated their lives to understanding the science. Barry
Barry Allow me to explain. You know about the many universes that exist simultaneously, all having their own physics and math? For some reason Dwaynes universe and ours intertwine. We don't know why and how, probably an internet glitch, but sometimes he comes over to the wrong universe with completely different physics. Don't worry. It's only temporarely.
Well Barry Flannery, simply you are talking to someone that understands the applications of physics and its failures, some who understands that many formulas put togetather by mathematicians can not be done, to yeild a correct out come. Some one who understands that all physics must be proofable by basic mathematics subtraction and addition to exsit as pretaining to reality. In which case it requires months or even years to affirm the assumptions put forth by physics. If you can even find a associate to confrim your physcis assumption. In end their are still formulas use by professionals and college graduates that have not been proven/ proofed and so in some feilds there exist gapping errors. I did not spit in anyones face for there efforts at science, if your wrong your just wrong, apparently you feel that scientist should be rewarded for their incorrect reflections to society. science deserves support to discern wrong from right but not to say that they deserve to hide the truth or fact for their personal fellings because they put forth a effort to make a deduction. ( Example; I carried the 400 pound rock up the mountain side bit still it was not enough to dam the stream and stop the water from filling the lake). In general I think that you do have the orientation of what I mean by earths compositon out of perspective form I am able to gather form the conversation so far. It would be correct in say that the earth interior is subject to movement such as convection, thermal uplifts, gravitional dips, ionzation,decay and chemistry(chemical reactions). it is also correct that chemical formation occurs forming inconsistancy or mixture of atomic elements forming chemicals resulting in strata or layers of different chemical composition of multi chemical composition. The layers that I defined within the earth are the normalization points of of those atomic elements, and they dominate those layers/strata of the interior of the earth, out side of those regions there chemical properties will change resulting in eventual decay, isotopic formation, and chemical bonds. other atoms are move out of those regions one way or another and so do not dominate those strata. however thay may exist in or travel through the strata/layer during disrtuptions, or as in such case you refer convection. It was my intention to define the composition of the earth not the chemical composition of the earth and i see where you could confuse that difference, others have. i leave the oreintation of earths chemical composition open to those people, geologist,theorist,college professors ect... as there are many different ways that one can view how the earth came under its current consistancy and chemical compostion. So having said that; if you think that the earth can not have a crust that floats on nitrogen and oxygen thats fine with me, perhaps you think that such nitrogen and oxygen is now locked up in chemical reactions such as SiO4, or that such nitrogen given its enert state has leached out of the earth and now exist in or atmopshere. Your welcome to those arguments, I might have a different argument for Chemical Composition and Oreintation, The U.S.G.S may feel there are other circumstance, NASA may have its own opinion, the professor at M.I.T may see it another way. But the General Compostion of the Earth is going to remain the same as I Defined. DwayneD.L.Rabon
Well Enmos For Gold that would be a layer of gold 168 feet thick covering the world. which would be a layer 4,488 feet below the earths surface (1 mile, basically). Even so gold is a heavy atomic element, and would sink into the earths crust, where it would ionize and react with other elements forming compound chemicals. 4,683,571,200 cubic ft. of gold in 1 cubic mile of dirt (147,197,952,000 ft.) or 3.1% percent of a cubic mile would be the distrubtion of gold if it where evenly spread across the earth to a depth of one mile. As gold is already about 1 mile in depth at normalization you could exspect a good percentage of that gold to be two miles below earths surface as gold is rather heavy and ductility increases with heat,with smaller amounts( concentrations) lifting to the earth surface where humans can pick it up, this type of gold would have less occurance as a chemical compound and would be found in masses or groupings, as opposed to deeper gold finds below the normaization depth. DwayneD.L.Rabon
Well Orelander, the awnser to your question is no, Normally don't spend time at a lot of forums althoguh i have been invited to serveral science forums. I was invited to this forums, i was told to check out some of the nuts on this site, this site was considered to be a forum for crazies. I was attracted by several topics and just started posting, that was some time ago, the topic I first came to when I was refered to this site was actually a important topic, it was about the electromagnetic pole reversal. One thing i can say is that this site seems to lack in conversation skills, but i had figured for along time that after all this is the internet of all places. Believe me given the lack postive or objective thinking exspressed here i have been thinking about dropping the idea posting here, the conversation kind of lacks as i said and i have my studies and research to pay attention to. there has been just enough interest to keep me looking. Yes thats right D H there are no web sites in my universe, just alot of paper, pencils and study. Orelander you could just have sent me a PM with such a question. DwayneD.L.Rabon
yes, I suppose I could have. :bugeye: I just thought maybe others would be interested in reading further on the subject if there were books/web sites on the same ideas you have. But if there aren't, then I guess never mind.
