Update on earths accelerating rotation speed.

submitted by Node from youtu.be

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]bobbobbybob 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

the guy is cool, but still thinks the earth is solid. For all his plasma physics, he doesn't recognise the plasma source of the earth's magnetosphere.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    what could produce that dynamo effect besides the Earth's plasm

    well, i don't know. a central plasma sun seems essential.

    spinning iron doesn't allow for observed fluctuations

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    What model are you basing this on? A spherical, even distribution of iron? Everything fluctuates: the sun's emissions, cosmic rays, etc.

    [–]Vigte 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    Funnily enough his last video (I'm somewhat skeptical of him and his intentions too) - featured a story about "Earth's Skeleton" - an interesting idea, youtuber aside.

    [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    i can't see how any of it works, from initial dust aggregation

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Because it's never just "dust aggregation"... There are electric, magnetic, gravitational, cosmic ray, solar wind inputs into everything. Plus extra-dimensional intelligences.

    [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    lol. go read the papers. 2m is the biggest you can get with dust aggregation. Until you bring in vorticies.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    lol? What are you loling at me for. Don't get uppity and antagonizing.

    [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Don't get uppity and antagonizing.

    i really have no idea why these conversations have gone south

    lol? What are you loling at me for.

    this: Plus extra-dimensional intelligences.

    I assumed you were being funny. Apologies if you were being serious.

    I've spent a lot of time reading papers on planetary formation, so i'm coming from an informed place. Have you? because there are lots of very serious analyses of proposed aggregation methods out there. Also lots of papers comparing KEPLER observations to theory predictions, and lots of anomalies.

    If you are similarly informed, then we can get into the meat of it, but if you are just hypothesising on the fly, then maybe there's no point.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    It looks like ridicule directed at me, then you go on replying to me about dust aggregation when I write there is no such thing as pure dust aggregation.

    But no, I am not as well-read as you on the topic.

    [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    It looks like ridicule directed at me,

    was the 'alien intelligence' part meant to be funny? thats what I loled at. you can continue to perpetuate the hard feelings even though I've said why i used 'lol', but that's not productive. Maybe just answer the question. Was it supposed to be funny?

    also, 'no such thing as pure dust aggregation' is fine. As I said, the theory of dust aggregation fails until you introduce vorticies. Alien Intelligences aside. Nothing else, no other theory, produces massive planets that fit solar system and kepler extra-solar observations.

    Unless you can point me to a paper that shows otherwise?

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Of course not. Once I wrote "it's never just dust aggregation" I thought it was amply clear where I stand?

    [–]Node[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    What do you mean by 'thinks the earth is solid'? Is this like a hollow earth theory?

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I thought the Earth was "porous" in a sense, so not really solid and not really hollow.

    [–]Node[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I do get the sense of the 'porosity', where the liquid at the core seeps out and up through 'less solid' or cracked parts of the mantle. Perhaps the same effect as on a merry-go-round occurs with the degree of 'seepage' outward mimicking tucking legs or stretching them out, affecting the rotation speed.

    [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    it is the opposite. he rejects hollow earth. seems like best theory to me, but what do i know?

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Well he talks about various layers of Earth... So... Is that "solid"? If the mantle is rotating faster than the nucleus and "skeleton" then... It's not really "solid" is it?

    [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    well, he's going with the idea that there is no gas under that, that the earth is a ball not a bubble. From what I understand, planetary formation theory no longer considers aggregation a viable accretion method, and 'counter-rotating epic cyclic vorticies' are the go.

    which result in bubbles, not blobs.

    The only 'disproof' of bubble earth are Mass estimates, but that only works if you do you mass / volume estimates using flat spacetime. As soon as you add in the curvature, a shell model fits perfectly.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I didn't see where Davidson said he doesn't think there's any gaseous masses of any significance under the crust. I would be very surprised.

    [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I read it in the comments once. Why don't you ask him? he generally replies

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    He does not.

    [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    i do wonder where he thinks it comes from. He's rolling with the 'dispersed iron skeleton' ideas, which to me are as batshit as the dark matter stuff (that he debunks), but it seems nonsensical.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    What do you propose, Mr. I'm-smarter-than-Ben-Davidson-but-I-am-not-sharing-my-knowledge?

    [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I never said I was smarter than Ben. He's fantastic. Just has a slightly different view on one subject