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

On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 14:16:39 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>

On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:50:06 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
>

>
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.

>
Right, thanks.
>
The pressure going deeper always increases, assuming it is
transmitted.  Whether it is metal or hot fluid, the transmission
is good.

>
There is nothing to assume there, this is just statics.
(unless there would be a supporting layer of near infinite strength)

Tectonic plates show that there is a sea of magma  or molten beneath the
crust upon they float.
The rocks get crushed to form that.
Beneath the magma, solid rock growing cooler.
Till the temperature is near absolute zero at the core.
Meaning that the Earth continually creates heat energy which dissipates
into the infinite universe.
And manifests as cbr along with other distant sources.
Woof woof

>
And on usage: the mere fact that the Earth is spherical
proves that such internal material strength does not exist.
This is precisely how 'planet' is defined by astronomers:
as a body for which gravity overwhelms all material forces,
(so it must be spherical, or more precisely, an ellipsoid of rotation)
>
Conversely, smaller bodies, such as asteroids,
that can maintain irregular shapes cannot be planets, by definition.
>
Earth is a planet,
>
Jan

--