[wavecrusher]

Posted: 2 weeks ago
I was in the Flat Earth bandwagon a while back.I have changed my views a bit and now i consider myself to be an earthal agnostic (i dont want to use global or planar ,if there is a better word please inform me) on the matter.However I have some doubts about the globe which I cannot get my head around.

1.Change in Gradient

If the Earth is a sphere,wont there be constant gradient shifts everywhere? In Australia we would be upside down as compared to the American or Northern European and vice versa.How do people get adjusted to these gradient shifts and why do we not feel any semblance of a slope change when travelling to two countries with almost opposite slopes?(America and New Zealand/Australia).Shouldn't a dude going from the United States to Australia feel like the world is upside down?

2.Core of the Earth

Modern science believes the globe to have a core which is around 6401 km deep or 3977.7 miles.The temperature is believed to be 6000 degrees Celsius.

"Experts" in the Flat Earth Conspiracy know the depth of the Kola Superdeep Borehole.12.262 km,the temperature however,was a whopping 180 degree Celsius.Thats a rise of about 14.67 degrees Celsius per km(never mind at 15km it was expected to be at 300 degrees which is 20 degrees per km).

Ignoring any factors other than the average heat increase for 12.262 km,the expected temperature at the core should be around 14.67*6401 which is approximately 94000 degrees Celsius.

How then,do we get the relatively cold 6000 degrees Celsius as the temperature of the Earth's core.

[TotesNotReptilian]

1.Change in Gradient

...Shouldn't a dude going from the United States to Australia feel like the world is upside down?

Counter question: How does your body detect which direction is up?

2.Core of the Earth

... Ignoring any factors other than the average heat increase for 12.262 km,the expected temperature at the core should be around 14.67*6401 which is approximately 94000 degrees Celsius.

How then,do we get the relatively cold 6000 degrees Celsius as the temperature of the Earth's core.

I don't think a constant gradient is a good assumption. From wikipedia:

The temperature of the inner core can be estimated by considering both the theoretical and the experimentally demonstrated constraints on the melting temperature of impure iron at the pressure which iron is under at the boundary of the inner core (about 330 GPa). These considerations suggest that its temperature is about 5,700 K (5,400 °C; 9,800 °F).

[wavecrusher]

1.Change in Gradient

Counter question: How does your body detect which direction is up?

Intuitively,it depends on the gradient and the way that a person would be standing if we placed him on different parts of the globe compared to his original position-Eg:If a person is standing at a point of the earth which has a completely horizontal tangent to the surface of the earth,and we place him where the land makes a completely vertical tangent to the surface of the earth,he will be feeling as if he is walking on a 90 degree reversal of the previous surface which he was originally standing on.He will only be supported by gravity,and might need a bit of time(walking on a perpendicular hill is never easy )to get adjusted.

2.Core of the Earth

... Ignoring any factors other than the average heat increase for 12.262 km,the expected temperature at the core should be around 14.67*6401 which is approximately 94000 degrees Celsius.

How then,do we get the relatively cold 6000 degrees Celsius as the temperature of the Earth's core.

I don't think a constant gradient is a good assumption. From wikipedia:


The temperature of the inner core can be estimated by considering both the theoretical and the experimentally demonstrated constraints on the melting temperature of impure iron at the pressure which iron is under at the boundary of the inner core (about 330 GPa). These considerations suggest that its temperature is about 5,700 K (5,400 °C; 9,800 °F).

Yep,its not likely to be linear.The temperature is likely to always be increasing,the rate of change of temperature should increase until a  maxima is reached.


Lets look at the practical experiment-The Kola Superdeep Borehole

The Kola borehole penetrated about a third of the way through the Baltic continental crust, estimated to be around 35 kilometers (22 mi) deep.

The hole reached 12,262 m (40,230 ft) in 1989. In that year, the hole depth was expected to reach 13,500 m (44,300 ft) by the end of 1990 and 15,000 m (49,000 ft) by 1993.[5][6] However, because of higher-than-expected temperatures at this depth and location, 180 °C (356 °F) instead of expected 100 °C (212 °F), drilling deeper was deemed unfeasible and the drilling was stopped in 1992.[4] With the projected further increase in temperature with increasing depth, drilling to 15,000 m (49,000 ft) would have meant working at a temperature of 300 °C (570 °F), where the drill bit would no longer work.

Theoretical rate of change of temperature expected between 0-12.26 km deep-8.15 degrees celsius
Rate of change of temperature between 0-12.26 km deep-14.68 degrees celsius-180 degree celsius
Rate of change of temperature projected between 12.26-15km deep-43.8 degrees celsius-300 degree Celsius
Average temperature

Theoretical temperature of the mantle 500-900 degrees Celsius(at 35 km)


Doesn't seem like a maxima is being reached...the gradient just keeps rocketing.I do agree that this doesn't isn't empirical proof against globe earth since the rate of change of the temperature may decrease at some point.It is just something to think about.


Uhh..i messed up the quotes and stuff..sorry,im new to this website

[TotesNotReptilian]

First of all, remember that 5000 - 6000 C is just a guess based on all relevant data. Nobody is claiming to know with absolute certainty what the temperature of the earth's core is. The study referenced by wikipedia for its 5400 C figure is from 2002. It's a safe bet that that study took into account anything learned from the Kola borehole.

Yep,its not likely to be linear.The temperature is likely to always be increasing,the rate of change of temperature should increase until a  maxima is reached.

I agree that temperature will likely always increase. But why do you think the rate of change of temperature will always increase? Just because it skyrockets in a particular layer, doesn't mean it will continue to accelerate at that rate.

Remember that the borehole only reaches 12 km deep. The radius of the earth is 6300 km. They haven't even broken through the crust yet. The crust can be thought of as a boundary layer. Weird stuff happens in boundary layers. Temperature trends in boundary layers are almost never representative of the system as a whole. This page on the geothermal gradient might be interesting to you:

The temperature gradient dramatically decreases with depth for two reasons. First, radioactive heat production is concentrated within the crust of the Earth, and particularly within the upper part of the crust, as concentrations of uranium, thorium, and potassium are highest there: these three elements are the main producers of radioactive heat within the Earth. Second, the mechanism of thermal transport changes from conduction, as within the rigid tectonic plates, to convection, in the portion of Earth's mantle that convects. Despite its solidity, most of the Earth's mantle behaves over long time-scales as a fluid, and heat is transported by advection, or material transport. Thus, the geothermal gradient within the bulk of Earth's mantle is of the order of 0.5 kelvin per kilometer, and is determined by the adiabatic gradient associated with mantle material (peridotite in the upper mantle).

Uhh..i messed up the quotes and stuff..sorry,im new to this website

Quotes should look like this:

Code: [Select]

[quote]
Nobody on the internet ever lies -- Abraham Lincoln
[/quote]


[CableDawg]

That point which has a completely horizontal tangent to the surface of Earth is the point where your feet touch the ground.  This horizontal tangent doesn't change, regardless of whether you are standing in your back yard or if you travel to another country.  Where you stand is where your tangent with Earth is created.

How are you visualizing a vertical tangent to Earth?

Are you visualizing a circle with tangents of 0 degrees and 180 degrees as being horizontal and tangents of 90 degrees and 270 degrees as being vertical?

Your premise is entirely dependent on you being locked, in some sense, to your point of origin and therefore any and all interactions with the wider world would be effected and affected by this point of origin.  If you traveled more than a few miles from your point of origin you would be at a constant lean as you would be moving further away from your point of origin, your point of upright verticalness.  Any number of the people you interact with would be at some degree of lean as they would also be further away from their point of origin, their point of upright verticalness.

[Luke 22:35-38]

Posted: 2 weeks ago
I was in the Flat Earth bandwagon a while back.I have changed my views a bit and now i consider myself to be an earthal agnostic (i dont want to use global or planar ,if there is a better word please inform me) on the matter.However I have some doubts about the globe which I cannot get my head around.

1.Change in Gradient

If the Earth is a sphere,wont there be constant gradient shifts everywhere? In Australia we would be upside down as compared to the American or Northern European and vice versa.How do people get adjusted to these gradient shifts and why do we not feel any semblance of a slope change when travelling to two countries with almost opposite slopes?(America and New Zealand/Australia).Shouldn't a dude going from the United States to Australia feel like the world is upside down?

No because of gravity. If gravity was falling south then you'll be right. But gravity is falling to the center of the earth.

2.Core of the Earth

Modern science believes the globe to have a core which is around 6401 km deep or 3977.7 miles.The temperature is believed to be 6000 degrees Celsius.

"Experts" in the Flat Earth Conspiracy know the depth of the Kola Superdeep Borehole.12.262 km,the temperature however,was a whopping 180 degree Celsius.Thats a rise of about 14.67 degrees Celsius per km(never mind at 15km it was expected to be at 300 degrees which is 20 degrees per km).

Ignoring any factors other than the average heat increase for 12.262 km,the expected temperature at the core should be around 14.67*6401 which is approximately 94000 degrees Celsius.

How then,do we get the relatively cold 6000 degrees Celsius as the temperature of the Earth's core.

I'll leave this for someone else to answer.

[Randominput]

Posted: 2 weeks ago
I was in the Flat Earth bandwagon a while back.I have changed my views a bit and now i consider myself to be an earthal agnostic (i dont want to use global or planar ,if there is a better word please inform me) on the matter.However I have some doubts about the globe which I cannot get my head around.

1.Change in Gradient

If the Earth is a sphere,wont there be constant gradient shifts everywhere? In Australia we would be upside down as compared to the American or Northern European and vice versa.How do people get adjusted to these gradient shifts and why do we not feel any semblance of a slope change when travelling to two countries with almost opposite slopes?(America and New Zealand/Australia).Shouldn't a dude going from the United States to Australia feel like the world is upside down?

The Earth's center of gravity is at its core. While I am really being pulled on by every particle in Earth, the combined forces pull us down. Since RE doesn't get gravity from constant acceleration, no matter where on the surface you stand, you will always be pulled to the core. Down will always be whatever direction I fall.
Biologically ,humans get a sense of gravity and other accelations from liquid-filled tubes near our ears. Our brains can translate these liquids sloshing around as accelerations. Anything from gravity to hitting the brakes on your car will be felt with these, and in most cases, these can tell us what down is. And since we@re being pulled to the center of Earth, down is the core.

Typos are because I'm on mobile and hate autocorrect.

[wavecrusher]

First of all, remember that 5000 - 6000 C is just a guess based on all relevant data. Nobody is claiming to know with absolute certainty what the temperature of the earth's core is. The study referenced by wikipedia for its 5400 C figure is from 2002. It's a safe bet that that study took into account anything learned from the Kola borehole.

Quote from: wavecrusher on June 05, 2016, 05:35:21 AM
Yep,its not likely to be linear.The temperature is likely to always be increasing,the rate of change of temperature should increase until a  maxima is reached.

I agree that temperature will likely always increase. But why do you think the rate of change of temperature will always increase? Just because it skyrockets in a particular layer, doesn't mean it will continue to accelerate at that rate.

Remember that the borehole only reaches 12 km deep. The radius of the earth is 6300 km. They haven't even broken through the crust yet. The crust can be thought of as a boundary layer. Weird stuff happens in boundary layers. Temperature trends in boundary layers are almost never representative of the system as a whole. This page on the geothermal gradient might be interesting to you:

The temperature gradient dramatically decreases with depth for two reasons. First, radioactive heat production is concentrated within the crust of the Earth, and particularly within the upper part of the crust, as concentrations of uranium, thorium, and potassium are highest there: these three elements are the main producers of radioactive heat within the Earth. Second, the mechanism of thermal transport changes from conduction, as within the rigid tectonic plates, to convection, in the portion of Earth's mantle that convects. Despite its solidity, most of the Earth's mantle behaves over long time-scales as a fluid, and heat is transported by advection, or material transport. Thus, the geothermal gradient within the bulk of Earth's mantle is of the order of 0.5 kelvin per kilometer, and is determined by the adiabatic gradient associated with mantle material (peridotite in the upper mantle).

yep...thats pretty interesting,radioactive heat production....ok,that doubt is cleared for now i guess.




I cant quite visualize that...so down is relative to every person who is standing on the earth? So...in a simulated condition(lets say in space),u were standing on a metal ball, on the underside,so u see everybody else upside down,and there was an pull of 9.81 ms^-2 generated by the ball on you,you would be able to feel that you were the right side up instead of upside down?

Does it work on anything other than a globe?If you stand on the underside of electromagnetic metal bar,upside down  ,with metal boots,and there is 19.62 ms^-2 acceleration acting toward the metal bar,and he walked on the bar.Would he feel as if he was walking normally after a while?

[TotesNotReptilian]

I cant quite visualize that...so down is relative to every person who is standing on the earth?

Our brains actually utilize a wide range of information to determine which way is "down":

1. Inner ear fluids (as Randominput stated) is probably the most important. This is why spinning your head around can make you dizzy. The fluid sloshes around and confuses your brain.
2. Vision. Your brain is used to how "up" and "down" looks. The sky is up. Tops of trees are up. Roofs are up. Grass/ground/floor is down. This is why it is slightly harder to balance with your eyes closed.
3. The feeling of various parts of your body (arms, legs) being "pulled down". This is why it is easy to get disoriented underwater.  Your arms arms and legs are floating.

So...in a simulated condition(lets say in space),u were standing on a metal ball, on the underside,so u see everybody else upside down,and there was an pull of 9.81 ms^-2 generated by the ball on you,you would be able to feel that you were the right side up instead of upside down?

Yes, although you might feel some queeziness from seeing everyone else upside-down. We generally don't have this problem on earth, since it is so big. Ask yourself this: who's to say YOU aren't right side up, and everyone else is upside down? On a ball floating in space, there is no up or down, just inwards and outwards. "Outwards" feels like up, and "inwards" feels like down, no matter what side of the ball you are on.

Does it work on anything other than a globe?If you stand on the underside of electromagnetic metal bar,upside down  ,with metal boots,and there is 19.62 ms^-2 acceleration acting toward the metal bar,and he walked on the bar.Would he feel as if he was walking normally after a while?

A globe isn't necessary, but it is the most ideal and most likely to occur in nature. Several thoughts on the "bar" (rectangular prism?) situation:

1. Electromagnetic boots wouldn't give you that feeling of "down", since the fluid in your inner ear wouldn't be attracted to it. It would probably just feel like you are floating in water with your feet stuck to an object. There are better ways of simulating artificial gravity than electromagnetism.

2. Assuming the bar is big enough to generate significant gravity: if you are in the middle of the bar, then yes, the bar will feel like it is "down". However, as you walk towards the edge/corner of the bar, it will feel like you are walking uphill. This is because gravity generally points towards the center of mass of an object (oversimplified explanation). A globe shape is ideal, because unlike the bar-shape, gravity will always point perpendicular to the surface. You will always be the same distance from the center, so you will never feel like you are walking uphill. (Assuming it is a perfect sphere: no hills/valleys/etc.)