| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 May 2007 11:41:43 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Question? |
*On 3 mai, 20:58, (Wiley Coyote) wrote:
*I'm a rookie here and I know that I have got a lot to learn.
*My first geology question is:
*
* What keeps the earth's core hot?
*
*I've heard several explanations but I'm not sure which one is true.
*
* Here is what I've heard:
*
* a) radioactive decay of isotopes of Nickel and Iron.
*
* b) transfer of angular momentium via magnetic fields.
*
* c) we keep sending assholes like Hitler and Pol Pot to hell
* and the devil can't keep the place hot enough
*
* Of course- C is a joke but I would like to know the real reason.
*
* Cheers,
*
* Wiley
*
* ---
* Wiley Coyote, Acme Inc
*
None of those my dear friend ! Further any proposed solution by the
Official Sci000nce is just as childish and infantile (including
sectarians' vision ) than that minds producing such !
You cannot understand nor come close to the correct solution unless
accointed to the UPL or Universal Pressure Law.
I have read Aidan Karley 's answer, and he 's dripping at the mouth
with all those unfunded childish ! Sickening, all the more since it
completely devaluate Scotland at large !
Nom de Dieu, mais c'est pas possible ! ... I mean the present state of
mental, intellectual and moral degeneracy the Earth has fallen to !
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Discoverer of Telfer, Nifty & Kintyre mines in the Great Sandy Desert
Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Mobile +33 650 171 464
Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~
for background info.
http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/turcaud.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s28534.htm
.
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
09 May 2007 06:47:57 AM |
|
|
On May 8, 9:04 pm, wrote:
On May 8, 4:06 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Keep your dayjob comedian.
At least I HAVE a day job, rather than long nights flipping burgers at
Mickey D's, telling customers that Jesus served Big Macs at the Last
Supper ("eat my body") and Shakes ("Drink my blood").
I see a YEC - yeck!!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 06:17:22 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 4:06 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
The heat equation is easy to solve. Show how long it takes for the
equilibrium temp to be reached.
10 bucks says he could not solve the heat equation for even the
simplest of initial and boundary conditions.
[...]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 08:06:03 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 4:17 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
10 bucks says he could not solve the heat equation for even the
simplest of initial and boundary conditions.
10 BUX?! Damn, you sound confident.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 06:20:39 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 7:17 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 8, 4:06 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
The heat equation is easy to solve. Show how long it takes for the
equilibrium temp to be reached.
10 bucks says he could not solve the heat equation for even the
simplest of initial and boundary conditions.
20 bucks says he didn't know there WAS a heat equation :-)
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 06:40:29 AM |
|
|
On May 8, 4:52 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178586740.972406.134360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 9:06 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178585767.029535.104740@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 8:44 pm, wrote:
Look, try writing shorter posts which may have the
effect of limiting the number of misconceptions and
misstatements per post. Then we can go through it
point by point.
- Randy
Wow grasping that mass keeps the earth warm is too tough huh?
That's the only point except people's heads here.
OK, that's a good start. Two sentences, only one
misconception.
What you mean by "mass keeps the earth warm" I guess
is that it would take a certain amount of time for the earth
to cool from its formation to its present temperature, due
to the size.
That is true. However, the lifetime of the earth is orders of
magnitude more than that "certain time". The earth's core
should have gone cold long ago.
So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?
A nice insulating rocky crust? It sure keeps the heat away me.
Also, I stay at blood heat all night long, no exercise. All I need
is a duvet. What keeps the atmosphere warm?
Well...see, there's this big ball in the sky...
Which does not do a lot for heating more than a few
km close to the surface.
You really are as dumb as the come... incredible.
Who said there were no stupid questions, only stupid answers?
"So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?"
Because it wrapped in a warm cosy blanket and there has NOT been enough
time for it to freeze, dumbfuck.
You mean it hasn't been around for the 30000 years that would
take?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/wcradheat.html
No problem, we'll just add radioactive heating of the earth to
the long and growing list of well-established science that you
don't believe in.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/12/10_heat.shtml
I don't suppose you've noticed (of course you haven't, your attention
span faded out 8 lines up) that every time we have one of these
exchanges about a well-established result, I provide links to
scientific
websites and your provide links to cartoons on your own website?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 08:44:35 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1178624429.639104.151210@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 4:52 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1178586740.972406.134360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 9:06 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1178585767.029535.104740@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 8:44 pm, wrote:
Look, try writing shorter posts which may have the
effect of limiting the number of misconceptions and
misstatements per post. Then we can go through it
point by point.
- Randy
Wow grasping that mass keeps the earth warm is too tough huh?
That's the only point except people's heads here.
OK, that's a good start. Two sentences, only one
misconception.
What you mean by "mass keeps the earth warm" I guess
is that it would take a certain amount of time for the earth
to cool from its formation to its present temperature, due
to the size.
That is true. However, the lifetime of the earth is orders of
magnitude more than that "certain time". The earth's core
should have gone cold long ago.
So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?
A nice insulating rocky crust? It sure keeps the heat away me.
Also, I stay at blood heat all night long, no exercise. All I need
is a duvet. What keeps the atmosphere warm?
Well...see, there's this big ball in the sky...
Which does not do a lot for heating more than a few
km close to the surface.
You really are as dumb as the come... incredible.
Who said there were no stupid questions, only stupid answers?
"So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?"
Because it wrapped in a warm cosy blanket and there has NOT been =
enough
time for it to freeze, dumbfuck.
=20
You mean it hasn't been around for the 30000 years that would
take?
=20
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/wcradheat.html
"Earth of today would be expected to be much cooler - in fact below the =
freezing point of water."
Big fucking deal, 273 degrees kelvin vs 300 kelvin, and it was Kelvin =
that did
a rough computation before the crust depth was guessed at.
You really are as dumb as the come... incredible.
I read Alice in Wonderland, too.
No problem, we'll just add radioactive heating of the earth to
the long and growing list of well-established science that you
don't believe in.
No, we'll add tidal friction to the long and growing list of =
poorly-established=20
guesses that you believe in, along with your monolux crackpottery. Seen
any Cheshire cats lately?=20
=20
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/12/10_heat.shtml
"Radioactive potassium, uranium and thorium are thought to be"=20
Big difference between "thought to be" and "known to be".
I don't suppose
Do come off it.=20
You are a master at supposing and then believing what you suppose.
How could you possibly not suppose? Your whole argument is supposition.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 07:29:21 PM |
|
|
Tell me what keeps a larger rock hotter in a fireplace than a small
one?
Plutonic Gamma rays?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 07:35:58 PM |
|
|
Don't know which of you scientists here posted the following:
Cooling is not important. If there were no radioactivity, the earth
would have become geological dead long ago. Kelvin tried to calculate
the age of the earth by determining how long it would take to cool.
His answer was off by 5 or 6 orders of magnitude.
But thanks for the laugh because no one knows the age of the earth ..
in fact estimates by so called experts are as extreme as one can
imagine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 11:59:03 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics,
<>
wrote
on 7 May 2007 17:35:58 -0700
<1178584558.587974.234510@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
Don't know which of you scientists here posted the following:
Cooling is not important. If there were no radioactivity, the earth
would have become geological dead long ago. Kelvin tried to calculate
the age of the earth by determining how long it would take to cool.
His answer was off by 5 or 6 orders of magnitude.
But thanks for the laugh because no one knows the age of the earth ..
in fact estimates by so called experts are as extreme as one can
imagine.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
But we do have some lovely parting gifts.
--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 07:05:17 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 8:35 pm, wrote:
Don't know which of you scientists here posted the following:
That would be me, which you would have known if you could read.
Cooling is not important. If there were no radioactivity, the earth
would have become geological dead long ago. Kelvin tried to calculate
the age of the earth by determining how long it would take to cool.
His answer was off by 5 or 6 orders of magnitude.
But thanks for the laugh
Don't mention it. Really - DON'T MENTION IT.
because no one
Not even your Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ?
knows the age of the earth ..
Just look at its birth certificate.BORN : 4.499,997,000 B.C.
in fact estimates by so called experts are as extreme as one can
imagine.
The next big thing after "Exteme sports" -> "extreme estimates". Would
make a great name form a reality show.
"On the next 'Extreme Estimates', the nitwit that guessed that the
earth was formed October 29, 4004 B.C. will be voted off the
island....."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 09:30:51 PM |
|
|
In article <1178584558.587974.234510@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, writes:
Don't know which of you scientists here posted the following:
Cooling is not important. If there were no radioactivity, the earth
would have become geological dead long ago. Kelvin tried to calculate
the age of the earth by determining how long it would take to cool.
His answer was off by 5 or 6 orders of magnitude.
Aha.
But thanks for the laugh because no one knows the age of the earth ..
in fact estimates by so called experts are as extreme as one can
imagine.
Actually no. All the estimates are in the same ballpark. About 4.5
billion years, give or take half a billion.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 10:26:14 PM |
|
|
In article <1178592918.409561.292900@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, writes:
On May 7, 5:56 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK, that's a good start. Two sentences, only one
misconception.
What you mean by "mass keeps the earth warm" I guess
is that it would take a certain amount of time for the earth
to cool from its formation to its present temperature, due
to the size.
bravo I think.
That is true. However, the lifetime of the earth is orders of
magnitude more than that "certain time". The earth's core
should have gone cold long ago.
you understand the mass of the earth? hint: the earth is
hhhhhhumongous.
A cooked large rock can keep a good portion of its heat overnight now
times that by several trillion.
So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze? The answer is that there must be an input of
energy from somewhere. It isn't just storing the initial
heat of its formation. It's been getting heat steadily
ever since.
The dominant input source for energy in the interior of
the earth is radioactive decay.
- Randy
No. I gave the one and only answer why the earth stays hot this long,
but you're free to stick to your beliefs.
RANDY ADDS:
Or didn't you know that caves and deep ocean are cool even
in midsummer?
Eureka the lad maybe onto something .. that the MASS of the ocean
reduces the temperature range.
Pretty much the same analogy I gave with the fireplace rock. It's all
about MASS.
.
.
.
.
In article <1178583866.204968.315...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
effac...@hotmail.com writes:
That's nice. Now, when you'll have something to be sarcastic about,
that will be even nicer.
And coming up with a better hypothecise would be even nicer.
Actually no. All the estimates are in the same ballpark. About 4.5
billion years, give or take half a billion.
"ALL" ??
You know all the scientists? Obviously not because I've read/heard/
seen a range
of scientists with views that range from as little as 4,200 years old
all the way
to scientists who say trillions of years old. And these guys are dead
serious.
Then I trust you can provide references to scientific publications
with such claims.
Tell me what keeps a larger rock hotter in a fireplace than a small
one?
Plutonic Gamma rays?
No.
Question evasion noted.
Evasion? Answers don't come more clear cut than this one.
Hey you guys are funny. It's been fun. Ciao for now.
Well, I'll try to get over the disappointment.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 06:47:27 PM |
|
|
In article <1178641123.953346.62310@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, writes:
On May 7, 8:26 pm, wrote:
In article <1178592918.409561.292...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, writes:
Tell me what keeps a larger rock hotter in a fireplace than a small
one?
Plutonic Gamma rays?
No.
Question evasion noted.
Evasion? Answers don't come more clear cut than this one.
I saw two question marks.
Good for you.
Evasion still noted.
Again, "no" is a clear cut answer. If you want a better answer, ask a
better question.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 08:32:57 PM |
|
|
In article <1178672887.828661.287290@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, writes:
On May 8, 4:47 pm, wrote:
"When you argue with a fool, chances are he is doing just the same"
Agree, that's why I'm done with you. Snored.
You said it yesterday. Then you came back for more. Mind you, I'm
not complaining, you do have some entertainment value. Not too much
but hey, given the cost...
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 08:08:07 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 4:47 pm, wrote:
"When you argue with a fool, chances are he is doing just the same"
Agree, that's why I'm done with you. Snored.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
09 May 2007 03:02:59 AM |
|
|
<effacers@hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1178672887.828661.287290@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 4:47 pm, wrote:
"When you argue with a fool, chances are he is doing just the same"
Agree, that's why I'm done with you. Snored.
When you AGREE with a fool, the GUARANTEE is he's doing just the same.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
09 May 2007 08:06:24 AM |
|
|
On May 9, 1:02 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"When you argue with a fool, chances are he is doing just the same"
Agree, that's why I'm done with you. Snored.
When you AGREE with a fool, the GUARANTEE is he's doing just the same.
That's right, and I was agreeing with the quotation, never once did I
agree with that fool.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
09 May 2007 09:49:14 AM |
|
|
<effacers@hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1178715984.082433.68010@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 1:02 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
=20
"When you argue with a fool, chances are he is doing just the =
same"
=20
Agree, that's why I'm done with you. Snored.
When you AGREE with a fool, the GUARANTEE is he's doing just the =
same.
=20
That's right, and I was agreeing with the quotation, never once did I
agree with that fool.
I wasn't suggesting *you* were a fool, merely highlighting out the =
illogical reasoning of
Meron. I argue with fools constantly, that's how I learn. How else can =
one find out if
they are fools or not?
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool. Shun =
him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student. Teach =
him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is a tool. Use him.
He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a sage. Follow him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
09 May 2007 10:24:25 AM |
|
|
On May 9, 10:49 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
<effac...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1178715984.082433.68010@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 1:02 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"When you argue with a fool, chances are he is doing just the same"
Agree, that's why I'm done with you. Snored.
I'm sure he's just all broken up about it.
When you AGREE with a fool, the GUARANTEE is he's doing just the same.
That's right, and I was agreeing with the quotation, never once did I
agree with that fool.
But you agreed with the fool Androcles the entire time.
I wasn't suggesting *you* were a fool,
but you should have, 'cause then you'd have been right for once in
your life.
merely highlighting out the illogical reasoning of
Meron. I argue with fools constantly, that's how I learn.
It says a lot about your "learning" that you get it from fools.
How else can one find out if
they are fools or not?
See if they agree with you - if they do, they are de facto fools.
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool. Shun him.
Shun yourself? That seems kinda cruel.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student. Teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is a tool. Use him.
He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a sage. Follow him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
09 May 2007 02:29:46 PM |
|
|
On May 9, 8:24 am, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mr. off topic adds:
I'm sure he's just all broken up about it.
I'm even more sure I could care less one way or the other.
But you agreed with the fool Androcles the entire time.
The fool?! Androcles is the only one here that has made a lick of
sense! Of course you couldn't figure that out.
I wasn't suggesting *you* were a fool,
but you should have, 'cause then you'd have been right for once in
your life.
Take a look in the mirror lately? Obviously not. You've added zero to
this debate. You have no foundation to label anyone a fool here.
It says a lot about your "learning" that you get it from fools.
more drivel .. yawn .. it's getting old and snore flags are about to
be cast on another dimwit here.
How else can one find out if
they are fools or not?
See if they agree with you - if they do, they are de facto fools.
Done. thanks for saving me time replying to your worthless posts in
the future fluff mouth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
09 May 2007 03:54:17 PM |
|
|
On May 9, 3:29 pm, wrote:
On May 9, 8:24 am, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mr. off topic adds:
I'm sure he's just all broken up about it.
I'm even more sure I could care less one way or the other.
But you agreed with the fool Androcles the entire time.
The fool?! Androcles is the only one here that has made a lick of
sense! Of course you couldn't figure that out.
a "lick of sense"? Yeh, you would lkike how he "licks".
I wasn't suggesting *you* were a fool,
but you should have, 'cause then you'd have been right for once in
your life.
Take a look in the mirror lately?
Yes.
Obviously not. You've added zero to
this debate. You have no foundation to label anyone a fool here.
You were the one who brouight up the word "fool", fool.
It says a lot about your "learning" that you get it from fools.
more drivel .. yawn .. it's getting old and snore flags are about to
be cast on another dimwit here.
Too bad. Then leave.
How else can one find out if
they are fools or not?
See if they agree with you - if they do, they are de facto fools.
Done. thanks for saving me time replying to your worthless posts in
the future fluff mouth.
You mean YOUR mouth, which you use to "fluff" Androcles?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
09 May 2007 02:41:27 PM |
|
|
On May 9, 7:49 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
I wasn't suggesting *you* were a fool, merely highlighting out the illogical reasoning of
Meron. I argue with fools constantly, that's how I learn. How else can one find out if
they are fools or not?
Androcles, this thread has become troll haven. I'm outta here. Hope to
see you again. Good luck.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
09 May 2007 02:34:21 PM |
|
|
On May 9, 7:49 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
That's right, and I was agreeing with the quotation, never once did I
agree with that fool.
Androcles, this thread has become troll haven. I'm outta here. I'll
rethread in the near future with the same question to non-troll people
who can actually think so hope to see you there. Good luck.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 12:35:05 AM |
|
|
In article <Pine.WNT.4.64.0705081512570.1072@serene.st>, "Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Tue, 8 May 2007, wrote:
effacers@hotmail.com writes:
And coming up with a better hypothecise would be even nicer.
Actually no. All the estimates are in the same ballpark. About 4.5
billion years, give or take half a billion.
"ALL" ??
You know all the scientists? Obviously not because I've read/heard/
seen a range
of scientists with views that range from as little as 4,200 years old
all the way
to scientists who say trillions of years old. And these guys are dead
serious.
Then I trust you can provide references to scientific publications
with such claims.
And YEC crank-rags are not "scientific" publications, even if "Science" is
the 2nd or 3rd word in the title.
Don't take "estimates" of the age of the Earth that are less than the
extent of history seriously, even though there are lots of them. I'd be
interested in seeing any modern scientific estimates of the age of the
Earth in the trillions of years, since not only does the 4.5 +/- 10%
billion years look pretty good, the justification for the Earth being
orders of magnitude older than the universe might make for amusing
reading.
Well, this absence of consistency checks is part of the entertainment
value of cranks.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 11:18:43 AM |
|
|
On May 7, 8:26 pm, wrote:
In article <1178592918.409561.292...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, writes:
Tell me what keeps a larger rock hotter in a fireplace than a small
one?
Plutonic Gamma rays?
No.
Question evasion noted.
Evasion? Answers don't come more clear cut than this one.
I saw two question marks. Evasion still noted.
Hey you guys are funny. It's been fun. Ciao for now.
Well, I'll try to get over the disappointment.
Hope you feel well now. I got back as fast as I could just for you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo A. Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 12:18:45 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 May 2007, wrote:
effacers@hotmail.com writes:
And coming up with a better hypothecise would be even nicer.
Actually no. All the estimates are in the same ballpark. About 4.5
billion years, give or take half a billion.
"ALL" ??
You know all the scientists? Obviously not because I've read/heard/
seen a range
of scientists with views that range from as little as 4,200 years old
all the way
to scientists who say trillions of years old. And these guys are dead
serious.
Then I trust you can provide references to scientific publications
with such claims.
And YEC crank-rags are not "scientific" publications, even if "Science" is
the 2nd or 3rd word in the title.
Don't take "estimates" of the age of the Earth that are less than the
extent of history seriously, even though there are lots of them. I'd be
interested in seeing any modern scientific estimates of the age of the
Earth in the trillions of years, since not only does the 4.5 +/- 10%
billion years look pretty good, the justification for the Earth being
orders of magnitude older than the universe might make for amusing
reading.
--
T.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 09:55:18 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 5:56 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK, that's a good start. Two sentences, only one
misconception.
What you mean by "mass keeps the earth warm" I guess
is that it would take a certain amount of time for the earth
to cool from its formation to its present temperature, due
to the size.
bravo I think.
That is true. However, the lifetime of the earth is orders of
magnitude more than that "certain time". The earth's core
should have gone cold long ago.
you understand the mass of the earth? hint: the earth is
hhhhhhumongous.
A cooked large rock can keep a good portion of its heat overnight now
times that by several trillion.
So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze? The answer is that there must be an input of
energy from somewhere. It isn't just storing the initial
heat of its formation. It's been getting heat steadily
ever since.
The dominant input source for energy in the interior of
the earth is radioactive decay.
- Randy
No. I gave the one and only answer why the earth stays hot this long,
but you're free to stick to your beliefs.
RANDY ADDS:
Or didn't you know that caves and deep ocean are cool even
in midsummer?
Eureka the lad maybe onto something .. that the MASS of the ocean
reduces the temperature range.
Pretty much the same analogy I gave with the fireplace rock. It's all
about MASS.
..
..
..
..
In article <1178583866.204968.315...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
effac...@hotmail.com writes:
That's nice. Now, when you'll have something to be sarcastic about,
that will be even nicer.
And coming up with a better hypothecise would be even nicer.
Actually no. All the estimates are in the same ballpark. About 4.5
billion years, give or take half a billion.
"ALL" ??
You know all the scientists? Obviously not because I've read/heard/
seen a range
of scientists with views that range from as little as 4,200 years old
all the way
to scientists who say trillions of years old. And these guys are dead
serious.
Tell me what keeps a larger rock hotter in a fireplace than a small
one?
Plutonic Gamma rays?
No.
Question evasion noted.
Hey you guys are funny. It's been fun. Ciao for now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 11:01:59 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 10:55 pm, wrote:
On May 7, 5:56 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK, that's a good start. Two sentences, only one
misconception.
What you mean by "mass keeps the earth warm" I guess
is that it would take a certain amount of time for the earth
to cool from its formation to its present temperature, due
to the size.
bravo I think.
That is true. However, the lifetime of the earth is orders of
magnitude more than that "certain time". The earth's core
should have gone cold long ago.
you understand the mass of the earth? hint: the earth is
hhhhhhumongous.
Around here, we deal with actual numbers. Saying "hhhhhumongous"
does not tell you whether it would take 50 billion years, or 50000
years.
A cooked large rock can keep a good portion of its heat overnight now
times that by several trillion.
Why should I "times that by several trillion"? Why not do the
actual physical calculation?
When you do that, the longest estimates before the surface is
cool enough for liquid water, are on the order of 0.5 billion years.
That's a really hhhhhhhumongous number. But the age of
the earth is a hhhhhhhumongouser number, about 10 times that
long.
The dominant input source for energy in the interior of
the earth is radioactive decay.
No. I gave the one and only answer why the earth stays hot this long,
but you're free to stick to your beliefs.
Your "one and only answer" is inconsistent with empirical evidence
and the laws of thermodynamics. It is not based on evidence.
That's what we call "faith-based".
And coming up with a better hypothecise would be even nicer.
Actually no. All the estimates are in the same ballpark. About 4.5
billion years, give or take half a billion.
"ALL" ??
All.
You know all the scientists? Obviously not because I've read/heard/
seen a range
of scientists with views that range from as little as 4,200 years old
You have not heard scientific estimates of 4200 years old. You
may have heard crackpot/creationist estimates of that order,
but the ones based on physics are ALL on the order of 4-5 billion
years.
Speaking of faith-based.
all the way
to scientists who say trillions of years old. And these guys are dead
serious.
No, you have not heard "trillions of years" from any actual scientists
trained in physics either. The universe is not that old.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 06:52:55 PM |
|
|
In article <1178642128.141069.262450@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, writes:
On May 7, 9:01 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Around here, we deal with actual numbers. Saying "hhhhhumongous"
does not tell you whether it would take 50 billion years, or 50000
years.
Yeah right show me your figures kook.
A cooked large rock can keep a good portion of its heat overnight now
times that by several trillion.
Why should I "times that by several trillion"? Why not do the
actual physical calculation?
No need, if you factor in the compounding effect of mass's ability to
maintain temerature at the "core" and the fact that the earth's core
is much hotter than a fireplace you'll find I gave a conservative
estimate. Do the math yourself if you're not happy.
The math has been done many times. You're off by orders of magnitude.
Your "one and only answer" is inconsistent with empirical evidence
and the laws of thermodynamics. It is not based on evidence.
That's what we call "faith-based".
WOW. You're saying a big rock holding heat longer than a small rock is
faith based?!
No, he didn't say this. Learn to read.
Debate over.
There is no debate here. At most, entertainment.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 11:35:28 AM |
|
|
On May 7, 9:01 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Around here, we deal with actual numbers. Saying "hhhhhumongous"
does not tell you whether it would take 50 billion years, or 50000
years.
Yeah right show me your figures kook.
A cooked large rock can keep a good portion of its heat overnight now
times that by several trillion.
Why should I "times that by several trillion"? Why not do the
actual physical calculation?
No need, if you factor in the compounding effect of mass's ability to
maintain temerature at the "core" and the fact that the earth's core
is much hotter than a fireplace you'll find I gave a conservative
estimate. Do the math yourself if you're not happy.
Your "one and only answer" is inconsistent with empirical evidence
and the laws of thermodynamics. It is not based on evidence.
That's what we call "faith-based".
WOW. You're saying a big rock holding heat longer than a small rock is
faith based?! Debate over.
Bedtime for this bonzo. Nightynight.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
