New Earth Compostion

Dwayne,

Right, I tried to play nice but you weren't willing to play along so now you must suffer my bad side...

To put this bluntly, you are stupid. Very simply, stupid. You claim that all maths are incorrect becuase they can't be reduced to your idiotic level of intelligence i.e. the realms of addition and subtraction. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it must be lies and false.

Do you trust your doctor? He is an expert in his field and you trust him to give you unknown pills and concoctions to cure yourself, likewise with a surgeon. Why not trust a mathematician or geologist.

Another concept forwarded by another individual who is much more intelligent than myself... Have you ever been to Korea? If not, how do you know it actually exists? Why should you believe the people who say its there or the maps in which it is on. Why don't you believe what people say about the earth and the maps its on...?

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.
Click to expand...

They do NOT see it another way. They are all in concensus with each other regarding the composition of the earth. Stop making unfound assertions.

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).
Click to expand...
What sort of lies are these? The deepest mine in the world is 3585 m below surface at the East Rand mine. This is far below your ''normalization'' lies and they have not found any gold to a depth of tens of feet. Stop bullshitting.
Gold is not ''reletively heavy'', it is ultra dense and heavy meaning it would sink DEEP into the crust and accumulate around the core if not inside it.

Yes thats right D H there are no web sites in my universe, just alot of paper, pencils and study.
Click to expand...
Horseshit, you've done no study. The only pencil work you've done is some very very simplified and misinformed estimations that are completely wrong.

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.
Click to expand...
What's this? Oh more horseshit. Firstly the gold will not combine with anything as gold is completely inert with practically everything it will find in the mantle.

Stop posting garbage, nobody wants to hear your ranting that defies all logically and mathematical based theories. Go learn maths if you can't understand them. Don't waste our time.

Barry
 
Andre,
I know, I know, I just feel a sense of duty to rid the world of idiots like this. A futile goal but someone's got to do it!

Barry
 
I'm not sure why these nutters make me so angry or force me into replying. I just feel it's an obligation to the memory of all those who spent their lives proving the point and how unfair it is for someone like this to completely bash it without any scientific basis. Just think of the man hours involved in making this theory happen and how unfair it is to treat it like what is being done now.
 
Barry I understand, But I have seen this so many times here. Nothing ever changes. Of course, it's very important to demonstrate young people the differerence between scientific principles, the corporate knowledge of science, and crackpottery more than refute the random rubbish. Perhaps focus on that.
 
Andre,

Speaking as a young person (16), I also find it very important to argue against much of these nutters just in case by some chance an individual who is completely uninformed of the subject might be reading and their knowledge will be fundamentally corrupted from the beginning...
You must remember that many people read these threads but don't reply so I guess it's also a duty to them.

Barry
 
Barry Flannery said:
Andre,

Speaking as a young person (16), I also find it very important to argue against much of these nutters just in case by some chance an individual who is completely uninformed of the subject might be reading and their knowledge will be fundamentally corrupted from the beginning...
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: Couldn't agree more. I recognize that very well and I think you may have some personal experience with that.

This place could indeed use some more active moderation.
 
Well Barry Flannery let me start by saying could you clean up your foul language.

Second, if you knew any thing about geology, or about terrestial compostion you would know that there is no agreeance amoung scientist as to the earths composition.
I am sure you will come to that understanding once you really get in to the study.
Which is one reason that I posted the subject in the first place. It requires a great deal of work to deducted, hence the illusive agreeance on the earths composition.
Search all you like you will not find a detailed examination, you will find information on the crust in detail, you will find density figures for the mantel, information on wave trajectory, but you will not find the earths composition in detail.
And I dare any of you to even try to find a detailed list of earths composition.

Lastly you live in current teaching where the iron core theory has predominated society, however if you read other theorys you will find that other scientist have deducted different results. the iron core theroy is popular mainly because in exsplains to the common person how the magnetic feild could exsist. but if you study magnetics you will find that iron is not even a magnetic and that other materials make stronger magnetic.

Barry you like foul language and are ego centric.

DwayneD.L.Rabon
 
DwayneD.L.Rabon said:
Well Barry Flannery let me start by saying could you clean up your foul language.

Second, if you knew any thing about geology, or about terrestial compostion you would know that there is no agreeance amoung scientist as to the earths composition.
I am sure you will come to that understanding once you really get in to the study.
Which is one reason that I posted the subject in the first place. It requires a great deal of work to deducted, hence the illusive agreeance on the earths composition.
Search all you like you will not find a detailed examination, you will find information on the crust in detail, you will find density figures for the mantel, information on wave trajectory, but you will not find the earths composition in detail.
And I dare any of you to even try to find a detailed list of earths composition.

Lastly you live in current teaching where the iron core theory has predominated society, however if you read other theorys you will find that other scientist have deducted different results. the iron core theroy is popular mainly because in exsplains to the common person how the magnetic feild could exsist. but if you study magnetics you will find that iron is not even a magnetic and that other materials make stronger magnetic.

Barry you like foul language and are ego centric.

DwayneD.L.Rabon
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Chemical_composition
 
Dwayne

You are amazing. I left the thread for a while and came back today to see what is new. I finally got it with the numbers you calculate (volume of elements and land comparison). It is as they say, difficult to communicate with geniuses, because they operate at a different level.

I still have difficulty getting the percentage of the elements. How did you figure that?

Thanks
 
Well Kmguru
The percentages listed are the percentages for each atomic element of the periodic chart, giving their percentage of the volume of the earth.
So given the entire volume of the earth, each percentage is the percentage of volume of the earth held by that atomic element. (sounds tricky)

Overall the composition of the earth has to be determined by the volume as the mass can not be used to determine composition. Too many variables exist when trying to make a assement based on mass. (however now that composition has been determined a estimate can be made as to the mass).

DwayneD.L.Rabon
 
Well Kmguru,
The actual formula is a secret as i am writting a book on the terrestial composition of the solar system.

The determination of any given atom be it boron or hydrogen, is determined by interactance of stars in our local group, stars within 64 light years, which establish the gravitional background for our region of the galaxy. this praticular formula is designed for use with every solar system that humans look at or vist. As astronomers find new planets a means of determining the planetary composition of those solar system becomes important and so I made the forumla proccess so that i can look at the circunstances of life in neary by stars, so far those assesed by the Recons Project.

A star determines the stabilty and conditions of the neutron that exist with atomic structure,and so isotopes and stable atomic elements are seperated by neturon stabilty and collaspe. by that means boron and hydrogen are seperated.

DwayneD.L.Rabon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top