Distribution of mass on Eath

  • 24 Replies
  • 3691 Views
Distribution of mass on Eath
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:11:01 AM »
Quote
PANGEEA PARADOX

As we have seen before, the area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A dead force like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.

You might have a point.... if the crustal layer and above had any significant amount of mass to them, compared to the overall Earth. Except it isn't, being only about .5% of the total mass of the earth


You do not understand the nature of the RE theory.








Each and every layer (official theory) - crust, mantle, outer/inner core - forms a perfect sphere.

Upon that sphere, we have the fifth and last layer, the lithosphere.

And here is where the problems begin for the RE.





The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads.

But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.


Do you understand what we are discussing here?

The northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere (the first 12 km); this unequal load is carried by the perfectly shaped geometrical figure (sphere or oblate spheroid), the first four layers of inner earth.

It does not matter if it constitutes 0.5 % or 0.1 %: the present distribution of the continents of the RE DEFIES clearly and totally the law of attractive gravity.

For the Pangeea hypothesis the situation is even more disastrous for the RE theory.



If we take into account the shape and size of the supercontinent Pangea, such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth. It would have gradually stopped the Earth from rotating around its own axis, and Pangea would have faced the Sun 24 hours a day. The rotating layers of iron/nickel would have come to a dead stop in some weeks.

But the % of mass matters COMPLETELY. You're saying that the northern hemisphere should counter weight the northern half of the planet, towards the sun, because it has 3x the landmass. Go get an orange, and put a speck of sand on it. does that change it at all? NO. That's similar to the type of affect the the mass of the continents would have on the overall movement of the earth.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2014, 09:46:46 AM »
The simple answer is that this statement is incorrect:  "the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere".

It's just another one of the unproven 'factoids' that the flat earthers come up with time and again in attempts to justify their theory.  It's along the same lines as gravity doesn't exist or the moon glows with its own light.

All equally absurd.
 

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2014, 10:03:29 AM »
ausGeoff, so your point is that other people are dumb and lying and you have nothing to back that up.  Did I sum i t up? 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2014, 10:21:15 AM »
ausGeoff, so your point is that other people are dumb and lying and you have nothing to back that up.  Did I sum it up?

The point I'm trying to make is that the flat earthers seldom have empirical evidence to support their claims, such as—in this case—the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.

Nowhere have I ever said that flat earthers are "dumb", or that they're "lying"; they're your words.  What I am saying is that they repeatedly misinterpret their observations of the physical world, and manufacture non-existent "evidence" to support those misinterpretations.

And if you'd like to, can you confirm the "top-heavy" claim about the planet jroa?  Do you believe that the northern hemisphere is heavier?  Or do you disagree with another one of your flat earth peers?
 

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2014, 10:29:54 AM »
What? ???  You are just rolling again. 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2014, 11:17:07 AM »
What? ???  You are just rolling again.

Is there any particular reason you've avoided addressing my question jroa?

Quote
And if you'd like to, can you confirm the "top-heavy" claim about the planet jroa?  Do you believe that the northern hemisphere is heavier?  Or do you disagree with another one of your flat earth peers?

 

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2014, 01:00:59 PM »
Is there any particular reason you've avoided addressing my question jroa?

Yes, because you are a bit boring.  That is the only reason for me avoiding any question. 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2014, 01:13:54 PM »
Is there any particular reason you've avoided addressing my question jroa?

Yes, because you are a bit boring.  That is the only reason for me avoiding any question.

I guess I should've learned by now that you repeatedly escape answering reasonable questions simply because you're a forum moderator; any round earther who consistently broke the forum rules as you do (with personal insults, or off-topic and low value comments) would be sanctioned immediately.  It's an obvious ploy of yours to respond merely with a silly put-down whenever you're backed into a corner, and I'm guessing that most other people here will have noticed that too.

It's apparent from your "non-answer" that you disagree with the top-heavy earth scenario, but it's a little bit embarrassing to be forced into open disagreement with a fellow flat earther about the planet's physical makeup I guess?

And this again raise the issue of all round earthers agreeing absolutely on the one, identical earth model, whereas the flat earthers can't even agree amongst themselves on a single model.


Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2014, 04:14:48 PM »
ausGeoff, so your point is that other people are dumb and lying and you have nothing to back that up.  Did I sum i t up?

I backed up my statement, that the miniscule amount ofun even weight the continents would provide, is irrelevent compared to the total mass of the earth.

And no one has been able to refute it all week.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2014, 07:22:43 PM »

I backed up my statement, that the miniscule amount of uneven weight the continents would provide, is irrelevant compared to the total mass of the earth.

And no one has been able to refute it all week.

And is why jroa has avoided addressing your question, and responded with yet another of his silly, off-topic non-answers.  Whenever he's backed into a corner, jroa inevitably resorts to the veiled ad hominem attack, rather than answering the question.  You'll notice that he's responded three time to this thread, but not once attempted to address your question.

jroa is a master of equivocation and misdirection, and would make an excellent politician.

So... we'll try again.   jroa, can you please give us your opinion on the "top heavy" earth  PANGEEA PARADOX proposition?  Do you agree with it?  Yes or no?
 

Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2014, 07:26:11 PM »

I backed up my statement, that the miniscule amount of uneven weight the continents would provide, is irrelevant compared to the total mass of the earth.

And no one has been able to refute it all week.

And is why jroa has avoided addressing your question, and responded with yet another of his silly, off-topic non-answers.  Whenever he's backed into a corner, jroa inevitably resorts to the veiled ad hominem attack, rather than answering the question.  You'll notice that he's responded three time to this thread, but not once attempted to address your question.

jroa is a master of equivocation and misdirection, and would make an excellent politician.

So... we'll try again.   jroa, can you please give us your opinion on the "top heavy" earth  PANGEEA PARADOX proposition?  Do you agree with it?  Yes or no?

Yep, and the original person to make the statement, sandokhan, claims to have never been proven wrong with any of his statements.

I guess I just ropa-doped the champ and KO'ed him.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4411
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2014, 03:47:43 AM »
The analogy with the speck of sand on top of an orange is priceless.

You actually wrote:

You might have a point.... if the crustal layer and above had any significant amount of mass to them, compared to the overall Earth. Except it isn't, being only about .5% of the total mass of the earth

That 0.5% defies the law of attractive gravity.



The northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere (the first 12 km); this unequal load is carried by the perfectly shaped geometrical figure (sphere or oblate spheroid), the first four layers of inner earth.

And as we have seen, for the Pangeea continent, the situation is even worse.


On the RE, the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere.

The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads.


?

Starman

  • 3860
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2014, 04:19:16 AM »
The earth crust is about 40 miles thick. So 40/4000 comes to .01 which is 1 percent. I dough the one percent would make much difference in the mass distribution.

Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2014, 05:00:41 AM »
The analogy with the speck of sand on top of an orange is priceless.

You actually wrote:

You might have a point.... if the crustal layer and above had any significant amount of mass to them, compared to the overall Earth. Except it isn't, being only about .5% of the total mass of the earth

That 0.5% defies the law of attractive gravity.



The northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere (the first 12 km); this unequal load is carried by the perfectly shaped geometrical figure (sphere or oblate spheroid), the first four layers of inner earth.

And as we have seen, for the Pangeea continent, the situation is even worse.


On the RE, the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere.

The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads.

from http://marinebio.org/oceans/history/ :

Our ocean covers 72% of the earth's surface. It is not distributed equally with respect to the Equator. About two-thirds of the earth's land area is found in the Northern Hemisphere, which is only 61% ocean. About 80% of the Southern Hemisphere is ocean.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2014, 01:49:13 AM »

sandokhan falls for the common flat earth mistake of considering the planet as possessing an actual "upper" or Northern hemisphere and an actual "lower" or Southern hemisphere when in actuality they're both simply abstract terms of convenience.  In space, there is no "up" and no "down", but this concept seems to escape the flat earthers repeatedly.

A body—such as the earth—floating in space will find its own equilibrium and maintain it, even if its mass is slightly irregularly distributed;  its centre of gravity doesn't vary at all.  Unless there's an applied external force that alters this equilibrium, then the planet will remain in a stable state.

I'm also guessing that sandokhan isn't aware that the earth's gravitational force acts only radially to its surface.  There's no major external tangential force that would produce any overturning moment.

At least he seems to accept the possibility of a spherical planet, which is something I guess.
 

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4411
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2014, 02:20:26 AM »
A body—such as the earth—floating in space will find its own equilibrium and maintain it, even if its mass is slightly irregularly distributed;  its centre of gravity doesn't vary at all.  Unless there's an applied external force that alters this equilibrium, then the planet will remain in a stable state.

You do not understand basic physics.

Let us go to the textbook on mechanics.

The position of the centre of gravity varies according to the shape of the object.

And, according to the official theory we do have an applied external force:




Also we have a perfect oblate spheroid (the first four layers), the Earth (RE theory), UPON WHICH WE HAVE AN UNEQUAL LOAD.


Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).


The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.


The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.

At present, the RE has an unequal distribution of mass: the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.



The earth crust is about 40 miles thick. So 40/4000 comes to .01 which is 1 percent. I dough the one percent would make much difference in the mass distribution.

It is the unequal mass distribution of the hemispheres upon a perfect oblate spheroid which defies the law of attractive gravity.

Since the northern hemisphere has more mass than its southern counterpart, we have a clear and definite DEFIANCE of the law of attractive gravity.


For the Pangeea hypothesis the situation is even more disastrous for the RE theory.



If we take into account the shape and size of the supercontinent Pangea, such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth. It would have gradually stopped the Earth from rotating around its own axis, and Pangea would have faced the Sun 24 hours a day. The rotating layers of iron/nickel would have come to a dead stop in some weeks.


Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2014, 05:05:36 AM »
Let's try this again sandokhan

Quote
The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.


from http://marinebio.org/oceans/history/ :

Our ocean covers 72% of the earth's surface. It is not distributed equally with respect to the Equator. About two-thirds of the earth's land area is found in the Northern Hemisphere, which is only 61% ocean. About 80% of the Southern Hemisphere is ocean.

There is more water in the south (significantly more, at that, unlike your weight of the crust), so your hypothesis is wrong.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5003
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2014, 07:20:52 PM »
All you're really doing is helping his argument.  Land weighs more than water, correct?  Therefore having more water means less weight.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2014, 02:46:22 PM »
I can't even imagine the sorts of terrific wobbles that would induce were the earth a spinning globe.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2014, 03:00:10 PM »
All you're really doing is helping his argument.  Land weighs more than water, correct?  Therefore having more water means less weight.
Just love your logic. The crust is 40 miles thick. The land and water in the surface is a very small percent of that. Think of the radius of the earth is about 4000 miles and   the land and water on the crust is about 2 miles on average. That is about .05 percent. I dough gravity will change much over the surface water or land.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2014, 05:48:08 PM »
I can't even imagine the sorts of terrific wobbles that would induce were the earth a spinning globe.

Not to mention near constant earthquakes.

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2014, 05:54:55 PM »
I can't even imagine the sorts of terrific wobbles that would induce were the earth a spinning globe.
The earth is very massive compared to the time it take to make one revolution.

*

sokarul

  • 16048
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2014, 06:36:05 PM »
A body—such as the earth—floating in space will find its own equilibrium and maintain it, even if its mass is slightly irregularly distributed;  its centre of gravity doesn't vary at all.  Unless there's an applied external force that alters this equilibrium, then the planet will remain in a stable state.

You do not understand basic physics.

Let us go to the textbook on mechanics.

The position of the centre of gravity varies according to the shape of the object.

And, according to the official theory we do have an applied external force:




Also we have a perfect oblate spheroid (the first four layers), the Earth (RE theory), UPON WHICH WE HAVE AN UNEQUAL LOAD.


Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).


The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.


The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.

At present, the RE has an unequal distribution of mass: the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.



The earth crust is about 40 miles thick. So 40/4000 comes to .01 which is 1 percent. I dough the one percent would make much difference in the mass distribution.

It is the unequal mass distribution of the hemispheres upon a perfect oblate spheroid which defies the law of attractive gravity.

Since the northern hemisphere has more mass than its southern counterpart, we have a clear and definite DEFIANCE of the law of attractive gravity.


For the Pangeea hypothesis the situation is even more disastrous for the RE theory.



If we take into account the shape and size of the supercontinent Pangea, such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth. It would have gradually stopped the Earth from rotating around its own axis, and Pangea would have faced the Sun 24 hours a day. The rotating layers of iron/nickel would have come to a dead stop in some weeks.
Where are the calculations?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

sokarul

  • 16048
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2014, 06:38:08 PM »
I can't even imagine the sorts of terrific wobbles that would induce were the earth a spinning globe.
You like balls so you can try this, spin a basketball on your figure so that it rotates once in 24 hours and then tell us about the "wobbles".
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Distribution of mass on Eath
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2014, 09:26:25 PM »
I can't even imagine the sorts of terrific wobbles that would induce were the earth a spinning globe.

It would rotate around it's centre of gravity, which might only be a few km from it's geographical centre, so the degree of wobble experienced in a 24 hour rotation would be pretty minimal. IMHO, this is another non-issue which proves nothing...
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."