Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s physics 
Sujet : Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum
De : bertietaylor (at) *nospam* myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor)
Groupes : alt.usage.english sci.physics
Date : 12. Mar 2025, 01:15:36
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Rocksolid Light
Message-ID : <f566b99721b58d4d1830a6b5534826e3@www.novabbs.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Rocksolid Light
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:23:49 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 0:29:28 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
On 11/03/25 06:54, jerryfriedman wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 9:50:06 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
On 09/03/25 09:58, Phil wrote:
On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote:
>
It's just as implausible as the suggestion (easily
disproved) that the pressure is zero at the centre of the
earth.
>
The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the
stars and planets. Read a first year book on physics.
>
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the
net gravitational force or pressure is zero.
>
Read that first year book yourself. Did you find the words "or
pressure"? No, I didn't think so. You've tried to conclude
something about the pressure from the gravitational force. That
doesn't work, because they are different quantities.
>
Gravitational force, like all forces, is a vector quantity. It has
a magnitude and a direction. That makes it possible that a number
of nonzero vectors can sum to zero; and, indeed, that is what
happens inside a spherical shell.
>
Pressure is a scalar. If you add two pressures, you get a higher
pressure. There's no such thing as a negative pressure to cancel
out the first pressure.
>
Pressure is not a scalar. It is a vector with the same dimension
Oops, sorry, instead of dimension it should be direction, above. As I
had intended earlier but was thwarted by over smart AI.
as
force. Yes there is such a thing as negative pressure, if we are talking
about force directions.. Heard of decompression? There the force pulls
the surface inwards, as pressure inside is negative with respect to
outside.
Jolly well pressure has direction, like pressure waves, pressure nozzles
for hosing and blasting... Indeed pressure is the engineering
application of force, from stitching in a particular direction or
finding the right stuff for pressure vessels.
>
Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of
the earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and
write down the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is
first year physics.) From that you get a differential equation for
the pressure as a function of radius. No matter what
simplifications you make, you will get the same conclusion: the
deeper you go, the higher the pressure. Which is something that
ocean divers can confirm from their own experience.
>
Handwaving above, typically pedantic, which needs to be fixed by the
great good sense of Arindam, as he provided many years ago. To repeat,
thus, as he had to do many times.
>
Yes pressure increases with depth. But this is not continuously so. At
some stage it peaks when there is enough mass below as there is enough
mass above. There is crushing with mass above and mass below enough heat
generated thus for rocks to melt. Then there is less crushing with less
mass below and too much mass above pulling the molten matter up. At some
depth there is thus less compression. The rocks cool. They become solid
and act as thousands of kilometers of insulation from the lava heat.
Till when the core is reached there is veryblittle pressure, very low
temperature but a lot of current in the core. Remaining heat or pressure
by the piezoelectric effect converts to continuously circulating direct
steady current responsible for the magnetic field which is undeniable in
presence. Without extreme coldness in the core the magnetic fields of
Earth, Sun, dark matter, etc. could not exist.
>
Thus there is nonlinearity involved. Small pedantic minds do not
understand nonlinearity. They just don't get it, especially when they
are puffed up academics. Arindam the greatest genius of all time made
his living from all sorts of nonlinearities - and that too in hostile
environments where he was always persecuted for his background and
independent outlook. He has changed the world with his brilliant works,
ranging from phased array antenna design to complex queuing systems for
teletraffic.Now as he works fir himself he is enjoying himself
thoroughly.
>
>
>
Even swimming pool divers.
>
Did they swim in a pool at the centre of the Earth?
>
Woof-woof, what fools these pedantic apes be!
>
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs, educating academics)
>
At the centre of the earth, the gravitational force is zero but
the pressure is at a maximum.
As pressure is force divided by area, the pressure has to be zero when
force is zero.
>
Presumably, by an analogous argument, the pressure at the centre
of a balloon is also zero?
Definitely zero, for there is no surface there to press against. Just a
lot of faster moving air going in all directions. If the core is solid
iron and very cold there could be a steady current creating the magnetic
field.

>
Actually, the gravitational force at the centre of a balloon is
zero, if you count only the force due to the balloon itself. But of
course, you do have to count the attraction from the earth as
well.
>
Either way, what you conclude about the gravitational force says
nothing about the pressure. They're different quantities.
They are related by the formula force equals area multiplied by
pressure. No getting away from it.
>
They're different, but they are connected.  Since the gravitational
force at the center of the Earth is 0, you can conclude that the
pressure /gradient/ there is 0.  Hint to Arindam.
>
Re-reading this thread, I have suddenly realised what has misled
Arindam.
You are misled like the rest of the world fooled by the abominable
Einsteinian scoundrels.
He keeps using "force" and "gravitational force" as if they
were interchangeable.
As gravitational force involving masses and distances is the force that
is under discussion for the gravitational force and its consequent
pressure at the core, that is not remarkable.
Not all forces are gravitational forces; and to
calculate pressure you have to add up all the forces, not just the
gravitational component.
The modern physicists in all their texts claim that it is gravitational
forces creating enormous pressures create fusion, neutron stars, black
holes etc. They ignore electric forces, nuclear forces that are the
other forces.
 At the centre of the earth, you also have to
taken into account the radially directed non-gravitational  force that
comes from the weight of all the rocks (and so on) above your head.
Gibberish. The gravity force is the only one that is relevant. Like in
any arch, the forces get distributed laterally and down so one can stay
under a dome without any pressure.
Wonder if this most beautiful Arindamic logic will enter any pedant's
head.
Woof woof woof woof-woof what fools these apes be.
Bertietaylor

Date Sujet#  Auteur
7 Mar 25 * Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum116Bertietaylor
8 Mar 25 +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum87Ross Clark
8 Mar 25 i+* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum85Peter Moylan
8 Mar 25 ii`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum84Bertietaylor
8 Mar 25 ii `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum83Bertietaylor
8 Mar 25 ii  +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum74Phil
9 Mar 25 ii  i+* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum10bertietaylor
9 Mar 25 ii  ii`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum9Rich Ulrich
9 Mar 25 ii  ii +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum2Richard Heathfield
31 Mar 25 ii  ii i`- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
9 Mar 25 ii  ii `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum6J. J. Lodder
9 Mar 25 ii  ii  +- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Physfitfreak
10 Mar 25 ii  ii  +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum3jerryfriedman
10 Mar 25 ii  ii  i`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum2J. J. Lodder
10 Mar 25 ii  ii  i `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1jerryfriedman
31 Mar 25 ii  ii  `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
9 Mar 25 ii  i`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum63Peter Moylan
10 Mar 25 ii  i +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum42bertitaylor
10 Mar 25 ii  i i+* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum34jerryfriedman
10 Mar 25 ii  i ii+* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum31Bertitaylor
12 Mar 25 ii  i iii`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum30jerryfriedman
13 Mar 25 ii  i iii +- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
13 Mar 25 ii  i iii +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum4Peter Moylan
13 Mar 25 ii  i iii i+* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum2Tony Cooper
13 Mar 25 ii  i iii ii`- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
31 Mar 25 ii  i iii i`- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
13 Mar 25 ii  i iii `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum24Peter Moylan
13 Mar 25 ii  i iii  `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum23J. J. Lodder
26 Mar 25 ii  i iii   `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum22Bertitaylor
27 Mar 25 ii  i iii    `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum21Jim Pennino
27 Mar 25 ii  i iii     +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum9Bertitaylor
27 Mar 25 ii  i iii     i`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum8Jim Pennino
27 Mar 25 ii  i iii     i `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum7bertitaylor
27 Mar 25 ii  i iii     i  `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum6Jim Pennino
27 Mar 25 ii  i iii     i   `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum5Bertitaylor
28 Mar 25 ii  i iii     i    `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum4Jim Pennino
28 Mar 25 ii  i iii     i     `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum3Bertitaylor
28 Mar 25 ii  i iii     i      `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum2Jim Pennino
28 Mar 25 ii  i iii     i       `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
31 Mar 25 ii  i iii     `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum11Bertitaylor
31 Mar 25 ii  i iii      `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum10Jim Pennino
8 Apr 25 ii  i iii       `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum9Bertitaylor
8 Apr 25 ii  i iii        `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum8Jim Pennino
8 Apr 25 ii  i iii         +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum2Bertitaylor
8 Apr 25 ii  i iii         i`- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Jim Pennino
8 Apr 25 ii  i iii         `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum5x
9 Apr 25 ii  i iii          `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum4Bertitaylor
9 Apr 25 ii  i iii           `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum3Jim Pennino
9 Apr 25 ii  i iii            `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum2Bertitaylor
9 Apr 25 ii  i iii             `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Jim Pennino
10 Mar 25 ii  i ii`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum2Richard Heathfield
10 Mar 25 ii  i ii `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
12 Mar 25 ii  i i`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum7David Canzi
12 Mar 25 ii  i i +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum5Snidely
12 Mar 25 ii  i i i`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum4J. J. Lodder
13 Mar 25 ii  i i i `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum3Peter Moylan
13 Mar 25 ii  i i i  `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum2J. J. Lodder
13 Mar 25 ii  i i i   `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Phil
13 Mar 25 ii  i i `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
10 Mar 25 ii  i +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum4Rich Ulrich
10 Mar 25 ii  i i+* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum2J. J. Lodder
31 Mar 25 ii  i ii`- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
14 Mar 25 ii  i i`- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
10 Mar 25 ii  i `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum16jerryfriedman
11 Mar 25 ii  i  +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum13Peter Moylan
11 Mar 25 ii  i  i+* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum10Snidely
11 Mar 25 ii  i  ii`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum9Peter Moylan
11 Mar 25 ii  i  ii +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum3Richard Heathfield
11 Mar 25 ii  i  ii i`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum2Physfitfreak
11 Mar 25 ii  i  ii i `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
11 Mar 25 ii  i  ii +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum4Snidely
11 Mar 25 ii  i  ii i`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum3jerryfriedman
12 Mar 25 ii  i  ii i +- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Snidely
31 Mar 25 ii  i  ii i `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
31 Mar 25 ii  i  ii `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
11 Mar 25 ii  i  i`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum2Bertitaylor
12 Mar 25 ii  i  i `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
11 Mar 25 ii  i  `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum2Bertitaylor
11 Mar 25 ii  i   `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Physfitfreak
9 Mar 25 ii  `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum8Jim Pennino
9 Mar 25 ii   +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum5Jim Pennino
9 Mar 25 ii   i`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum4Jim Pennino
9 Mar 25 ii   i `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum3bertietaylor
9 Mar 25 ii   i  +- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Jim Pennino
10 Mar 25 ii   i  `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Physfitfreak
31 Mar 25 ii   `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum2Physfitfreak
7 Apr 25 ii    `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
8 Mar 25 i`- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertietaylor
8 Mar 25 +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum3Jim Pennino
27 Mar 25 i`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum2Bertitaylor
28 Mar 25 i `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Jim Pennino
10 Mar 25 `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum25David Canzi
10 Mar 25  +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum23bertitaylor
10 Mar 25  i`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum22David Canzi
11 Mar 25  i +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum20Bertitaylor
12 Mar 25  i i`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum19David Canzi
12 Mar 25  i i +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum14Bertitaylor
26 Mar 25  i i i`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum13David Canzi
26 Mar 25  i i i `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum12Bertitaylor
26 Mar 25  i i i  +* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum8Johnny LaRue
26 Mar 25  i i i  i+* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum4Bertitaylor
27 Mar 25  i i i  i`* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum3Peter Moylan
27 Mar 25  i i i  `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum3David Canzi
13 Mar 25  i i `* Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum4Peter Moylan
9 Apr 25  i `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor
10 Apr 25  `- Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum1Bertitaylor

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal