Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by OilIsMastery, Dec 13, 2008.
Does anyone have a scientific counterargument to this other than Newton's God?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yes. How about some common sense.
Because the thermal energy of the molecules at the earths surface is sufficient to overcome the tendency to settle out. It doesn't take much in the way of turbulence to encourage mixing, add to that the earths topography.
The Irony of just how wrong this statement is is that it's also this settling out that causes the earths atmospheres temperature and composition to vary the way it does (and in spite of what Velikosky might say, it does vary.
The generation of Ozone is a Photochemical process. It exists where it does because of a combination of the incoming UV flux, and the way the density of the earths atmosphere changes. Ozone is formed at a rate that is oxygen density and UV flux dependent. The rate at which Ozone is destroyed is also (in part) dependent upon the density of the atmosphere.
Ozone actually exists in varying amounts throughout the entire atmospheric column, and can be created other ways as well, however, Ozone is an unstable molecule, with a half life of about 90 minutes, and the average molecule lasting about 22 days in the earths atmosphere.
The Ozone layer occurs where it does, because the height it is at represents a balance between the rate at which it is created, and the rate at which it is destroyed.
It's called suspension.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Air is made up of particles. These particles collide with the water droplets and transfer energy to them. Clouds only occur where there is some form of updraft, and because of this, the energy transfer has a net direction. Considering the total mass of the clouds is a strawman fallacy, because it simply isn't important. The air doesn't support the cloud as a whole, but the individual droplets.
The only way this even comes close to making any sense is if one assumes the continents are fixed and unmoving. A principle that was disproven by Wegner, and even you have accepted as being wrong.
Again, entrainment by the solar wind is part of the answer, momentum imparted by photons is the other part of the answer.
This is straight out wrong (by my recollection anyway, an actual physicist may want to correct me) but my recollection is that it has been demonstrated (albeit the findings are still dispted) that Gravity acts at c.
Einstein addressed this point in relativity - Gravity is a force caused by the curvature of space-time.
Gravity is measured to be a weak force, that obeys the inverse square law (as distance increases, force experienced rapidly approaches zero).
It's called ring physics - if you have a cloud that's tending to rotate in the same direction, then it will tend to collapse into a disc, because when two highly inclined particles collide, the vertical components of their motions will tend to cancel, and the particles will tend to settle into a single plane (i'd wager good money that I know what your next question will be, but we'll see).
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That makes no sense. The temperature has nothing to do with whether or not we can breathe. We can still breathe in freezing temperatures.
What about in places where there is quiescent air?
That doesn't explain why it defies gravity.
That defies gravity.
I'm pretty sure you haven't observed the average molecule but still that doesn't answer the question of why it defies gravity for 22 days.
Suspension defies gravity.
Brilliant. So why do those particles defy gravity?
Link please. Why does the air beneath the cloud defy gravity?
It's a fact that there is more continental mass in the Northern Hemisphere than there is in the Southern Hemisiphere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om9H0Qv0LSU
Wegener (1915) cited Mantovani (1909) so you're wrong again.
Solar wind defies the gravity of the sun.
p=mv therefore the photon has mass.
Something that does not exist cannot be curved. And how, precisely, does matter have an effect on empty space?
That makes no sense whatsoever. Sounds like Newtonian gravity aka God did it.
Velikovsky uses several logical fallacies here.
1. From the link, "The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”" This is part of the explanation. By ignoring the other, larger part of the explanation Velikovsky has created a straw man.
2. Continuing from the link, "This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon." Now he uses his straw man to create an appeal to ridicule. He furthermore compounds the fallacy by making an unwarranted conclusion. He assumes that "nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon". This is the logical fallacy of necessity. The link continues with additional straw man, appeal to ridicule, and unwarranted conclusions.
Velikovsky's argument is false because tropospheric mixing is only a part of the explanation. While tropospheric mixing speeds up the mixing process, the atmosphere would be nearly uniform in composition even without tropospheric mixing. Velikovsky ignored the known concepts of diffusion and partial pressure. While diffusion is a slow process, the stable elements of the atmosphere (e.g., nitrogen, oxygen, and argon) have been around for a long time, much more than long enough for tropospheric mixing and diffusion to make for a uniform gaseous mixture.
Yet more fallacies. Scientists know full well why the relative concentration of ozone is considerably higher in the stratosphere than in the troposphere, and density is not the explanation. So what is the explanation?
First off, ozone is unstable. In the upper atmosphere oxygen and ozone transform into one another by means of sunlight. In the troposphere, there production of ozone is vastly reduced because the ozone layer absorbs much of the UV radiation that feeds the oxygen/ozone cycle and destruction of ozone is vastly increased because of the increased presence of hydroxyl ions and nitric oxide in the troposphere.
Secondly, because there is little mixing between the troposphere and stratosphere, there is no reason to assume that the unstable portions of the atmosphere (e.g., water vapor, hydroxyl ions, nitric oxide, and ozone) will have the same distribution in the stratosphere and troposphere.
Note well: The oxygen/ozone cycle was explained in 1930, well before Velikovsky wrote his book.
Three fallacies here. First off, water vapor is less dense than is the atmosphere. Secondly, Brownian motion fully explains why very small droplets of liquid water can remain suspended in the atmosphere. Thirdly, it rains.
I have real stuff to do. I've wasted more than enough time on this garbage as it is.
You seem to think there's no force capable of overcoming gravity. In case you're unaware, that's totally wrong.
Seeming is not being. Electromagnetism is 2X10^39th times more powerful than gravity.
"...in 1913—G. E. Hale published his paper on “The general magnetic field of the sun” (Contr. M. Wilson Obs., #71), in which he estimated the general magnetic field of the sun as of 50 Gauss intensity. At this intensity “under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation.” (Alfven) The last named author in his “cosmical Electro-dynamics” (Oxford, 1950, p. 2) shows that a hydrogen atom at the distance of the earth from the sun and moving with the earth’s orbital velocity, if ionized, is acted upon by the solar magnetic field ten thousand times stronger than by the solar gravitational field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952
If you accept that then most of your questions answer themselves.
No. My question is if anyone has a scientific counterargument and so far I haven't seen one.
But you won't, in fact you never will; no-one can tell you why because you won't see it.
Persuasion requires the use of logic, observation, science and reason as opposed to knee-jerk religious dogma like Newtonian Divine Providence aka "gravity."
This is completely irrelevant and not what I said. Even in the coldest places on earth, there is still sufficient thermal energy to overcome this.
You obviously don't understand teh concept of turbulent mixing (and the fact that as D_H pointed out, it only forms part of the answer.
Appeal to ignorance. For a small particle, it does not take much force to overcome gravity. at the altitude of the Ozone layer, the mean free path is still only 0.1 - 100 μm - in otherwords, an Ozone molecule can only travel 0.1 - 100 μm before colliding with another molecule of some kind, and with the reactivity of Ozone, this will probably result in a reaction taking place. It also means that it can only travel a distance of 0.1 - 100 μm before it's direction of motion changes.
I've already explained this. You're misrepresenting my statements (again).
No, it doesn't.
Go look up Brownian motion, and Mean Free Path.
It doesn't. It's called Bouyancy, the warmer air is less dense, and therfore rises, obeying the law of gravity.
Congratulations, you missed the point (again).
Your assertion is only relavent if we assume the continents are fixed and unmoving.
Irrelevant. Scientests often cite other scientests as specific examples of points that they're arguing against. The fact that Wegner cited Manotvani is completely meaningless, it only indicates that Wegner used Mantovani as a specific example. In fact if you look up the Wikipedia page on Roberto Mantovani, it explicitly states that Alfred Wegner saw some similarities, but did not support Manotvani's expanding earth theory.
So either you're lying about the significance, or you didn't bother with basic fact checking (meaning either your lazy or ignorant).
No it doesn't - look up Escape Velocity.
It's already been explained to you why you're wrong on this point.
Ask Alphanumeric, BenTheMan, or Rpenner, they can probably give you a more comprehensive answer than I can.
Just because you don't understand simple physics, and simple calculas (vector addition) doesn't make it wrong.
Open your eyes, and your mind.
OIM: While you're looking stuff up, may I also recomend you look up "Heterosphere" and "Homosphere".
1. This argument is a non sequitur; it barely makes sense. I guess complete lack of logic is a logical fallacy, of a source.
2. It ignores the conservation of angular momentum.
3. It ignores that the Earth's crust represents but a tiny, tiny portion of the total mass of the Earth.
4. It ignores that the ocean crust is more dense than the continental crust.
Perhaps OIM cut off something important with the ellipsis that makes a tad bit more sense. From the link in the OP,
Non sequitur. Angular momentum is what keeps the Earth rotating around a (nearly) fixed axis, not gravity. And WTF is a "dead force"?
The seasonal distribution of ice and snow does "interfere with the equilibrium of the earth", in the sense that the Earth's rotation rate and rotational axis both exhibit seasonal variations. The former is the difference between UT2 and UT1, while the latter is the seasonal polar motion.
Comets and their tails of course do "obey the principle of gravitation". They also happen to be subject to other forces. To say that astronomers think gravitation is the only force worthy of consideration is a straw man.
False. We've gone over this before. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
See "Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?" at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
This argument is (1) a mischaracterization of science, (2) quotes people out of context, (3) ignores general relativity. Nice.
Rebuttal: (1) The mass of the universe is not infinite. (2) In Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational force inside a uniform shell of mass is zero. (3) Mach's principle.
This confuses correlation and causation. The Sun's magnetic field arises from the Sun's rotation about its own axis. The Sun's rotation axis and the planet's orbital axes are nearly parallel because the interstellar nebula from which the sun and planets formed was rotating. Angular momentum is a conserved quantity.
No, I'm telling you the question's you've asked answer themselves. It's not my job to give you a high school education on this subject, if it's answers you want I suggest you take a high school physics class. Though I suspect you don't give a damn about the answers, you're only here to start an argument for the sake of arguing.
In addition, if you walk off the top of a tall building you'll remain suspended in mid air - despite the great difference in specific weight between your body and the surrounding atmosphere. This is clearly incompatible with the religion of gravity.
If "you" refers to a molecule of argon, nitrogen, or ozone then you are quite correct.
Your response is what makes no sense. Temperature has a lot to do with the behavior of gases. Before you embarrass yourself further, you should familiarize yourself with the kinetic theory of gases. Here's one site: http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c120/gaskinetics.html. Google will show you many, many more.
Read post #4.
You deleted the portion of Trippy's response that explains why ozone is more concentrated in the stratosphere. Also see post #4.
Repeating the same tripe over and over does not make said tripe correct. You are embarrassing yourself and you are an embarrassment to this forum. You need to study the kinetic theory of gases at a minimum. If you want to learn why the relative concentration of ozone is much higher in the stratosphere, read up on the ozone/oxygen cycle. If you want to understand how rain clouds form, read up on meteorology in general and the water cycle specifically. There is lots of material on the web from K-12 and up. There is even some at the K-6 level, which is where you might want to start.
Atmosphereic scientists do not think that gravity is the only force acting on the atmosphere. You are implying that science only considers gravity in explaining the makeup of the atmosphere. In doing so you are building a straw man.
That is a fact. So what? You, as the proponent of an alternative explanation, need to show why this uneven mass distribution would, quoting Velikovsky, "place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun." You can't just say that this posited result will occur (HINT: Velikovsky is wrong) you need to show how and why. Supplying answers to these questions might help:
How significant is this in terms of the overall distribution of mass in the Earth?
What torques does this uneven distribution of continental mass produce?
By which mechanism?
What is the time frame needed to change the current, supposedly unstable alignment of the Earth to an alignment with the "northern hemisphere with its face to the sun"?
What happens if the continents move while this purported realignment takes place?
No, it doesn't. We've discussed this before.
I would like to see you displaying some basic courtesy. Trippy and DH have explained in some detail why Velikovsky was wrong, and have answered your questions. So, now is your opportunity to thank them for teaching you some science you obviously didn't know before.
I note that I also taught you about relativity in a previous thread, and you have not thanked me for that, either.
Didn't your parents teach you manners?
A bit more education for you:
The average temperature of the air on Earth is about 290-300 Kelvin (the absolute temperature scale).
There are no places where there is quiescent air. At 300 Kelvin, the average speed of a molecule in the air is several hundred metres per second.
This was explained to you in the first reply. Why are you pretending it was not?
By the same argument, a ball defies the gravity of the Earth when it is thrown into the air. See where your argument fails?
Did you not read my detailed and helpful explanation of your error on this point in the other thread? If not, go look for it. Then do me the courtesy of thanking me for educating you.
You appear to be claiming that spacetime does not exist. Please provide evidence for that claim, if you have any.
As to your second question, the explanation of how this occurs is found in Einstein's gravitational field equations of general relativity. Basically, energy and mass causes spacetime to curve.
A bit of humility wouldn't go astray. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that the thing is not understood by others.
You would do better to ask questions to clarify your lack of knowledge rather than simply asserting the untruth of anything you don't understand.
Once again, it comes down to basic courtesy and a willingness to put your ego aside and learn something.
You mean like the courtesy that I receive when moderators call me an idiot (allegedly against forum rules) and ban me for posting a video of an electron?
It exists in our mathematical imagination only not in physical material reality.
Please provide evidence for your claim that there is such a thing as empty space except in your mathematical imagination.
Here is my evidence: Kant, I., Critique of Pure Reason, 1781.
"I can't even tell you at the moment what 'at the moment means.' Even momentarily." -- Brian Cox, physicist, 2008
"Classic quantum mechanics seems to exhibit some of the characteristics that Immanuel Kant described about the relation between phenomenal reality in space and time and things-in-themselves." -- Kelley L. Ross, philosopher, 1997
"The arguments of Hume and Kant have been confirmed by quantum mechanics." -- Sunny Y. Auyang, physicist, 1995
"Quite generally there is no way of describing what happens between two consecutive observations. It is of course tempting to say that the electron must have been somewhere between the two observations and that therefore the electron must have described some kind of path or orbit even if it may be impossible to know which path. This would be a reasonable argument in classical physics. But in quantum physics it would be a misuse of the language which, as we will see later, cannot be justified." -- Werner Heisenberg, physicist, 1958
"In the discussion of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory it has been emphasised that we use the classical concepts in describing our experimental equipment and more generally in describing that part of the world which does not belong to the object of the experiment. The use of these concepts, including space, time and causality, is in fact the condition for observing atomic events and is, in this sense of the word, 'a priori'." -- Werner Heisenberg, physicist, 1958
"The belief in an external world independent of the observing subject lies at the foundation of all natural science. However, since sense-perceptions only inform us about this external world, or physical reality, indirectly, it is only in a speculative way that it can be grasped by us. Consequently our conceptions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these conceptions, i.e. the axiomatic basis of physics, in order to do justice to the facts of observation in the most complete way that is logically possible. In actual fact, a glance at the development of physics shows that this axiomatic basis has met with radical changes from time to time." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1931
"If nothing is observable, it is only proper to say that nothing is happening; the system is settled into a spaceless and timeless stationary state outside our intuitions." -- Clinton Joseph Davisson, physicist, 1927
Separate names with a comma.