Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 37 of 64«1235363738396364»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Science and Astronomy Discussions » Science and Astronomy Questions
Science and Astronomy Questions
steeljaw354Date: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 10:43 | Message # 541
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
Well we just discovered an ocean underground, 3 times as much water than on the surface, so it isn't completely nice and layered as some have thought, furthermore it isn't logical to assume everything we say about the universe is right. Vast cave systems have been found and reports of beings and underworlds have been said, but they have been so Conveniently written off. I'm saying that we may be sitting atop a massive cave system and it might not show up on our graphs and such, only way to find out is to drill as deep as we can, further and further.

We know for sure what lies out in the solar system, yet we aren't entirely aware of what is inside the earth, what could be inside the iron core? What could be inside the areas we haven't searched yet? I'm not sure.


Edited by steeljaw354 - Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 10:49
 
midtskogenDate: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 11:14 | Message # 542
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1667
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
we just discovered an ocean underground, 3 times as much water than on the surface

It's not an "ocean". It's not liquid water, but water molecules trapped in the mantle. Assumed to be there by indirect evidence.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
MosfetDate: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 12:04 | Message # 543
World Builder
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 713
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
it isn't logical to assume everything we say about the universe is right

Science doesn't work like that, if you state this you got it wrong. If someone told you that science is the bearer of the truth he's misguiding you.





"Time is illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
Douglas N. Adams
My mods
Asus x555ub: cpu i5-6200u - ram 4gb - gpu nvidia geforce 940m 2gb vram
 
FastFourierTransformDate: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 13:19 | Message # 544
Pioneer
Group: Local Moderators
Spain
Messages: 538
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
and it might not show up on our graphs and such, only way to find out is to drill as deep as we can, further and further.


I would answer in an experimental aproach first and then if you want in a theoretical aproach (both aproaches of science):

Experimental aproach

The root of the problem is with this concept. Science doesn't distinguish beetwen instruments and senses when we are talking like this. Your eyes are instruments, they detect with more or less precision and sensitivity, the intensity and frequancy of electromagnetic waves in a certain spactral band. Your eyes "show up graphs and such" but in a very particular output format (interpreted by the brain-visual system). A camera dosen't differ from this. It also outputs a graph of the image taken (the format of this data comes in the same format as it arrived in this case, the camera only archives de data and displays it in the same format), it's also an instrument capable of detecting the intensity and frequency of the perturbations in the electromagnetic field that sorrounds it. The main difference is that our senses are crafted by natural selection and the camera has been made by a mechanical machine in a factory. But this is irrelevent to data. Both instruments are valid (in their range of precision and capabilities).

Other instruments are like that. Maybe you can't see infrared light but we have built senses that are totally capable. LIGO is an eye that observes in gravitational waves insted of electromagnetic waves. We have expanded our senses beyond comprehension. We can hear, touch, feel and see things that where invisible to our senses. The line beetwen artificial and natural doesn't matter really in the scientific framework. Scientific instruments are senses and biological senses are instruments for mesurement (with their corresponding reliability as I said).

When you say "only way to find out is to drill as deep as we can" you are implying that only you would believe there is layered earth if you saw it. Why you decided to give more importance to your eyes than seismometers? Both are instruments. Seismometers are perfectly capable of taking a look on the interior of Earth. If they are well placed what you have created is an eye that can see seismic waves, and watching carefully the reflections and refractions of those waves (as you do when you see) you can create a "graph" of the interior of earth ("graph" = well defined picture). Why this bias towards your biological senses? Your drills and eyes would never be so reliable by the way (do to the fact that these instruments are far better in many senses) to give you confindence of what the whole planet looks in the interior. You don't have to drill down the earth to know this is layered. The same is true for your eyes: you don't have to shatter the window to see what lies beyond it, because for the range of frequencies of the electromagnetic waves those pass through until they reach you eyes. Seismic waves (that are mechanical presure waves) can pass through the earth cust in the same way. Different parts of the Earth are more or less transparent or opaque to different wavelenghts of seismic waves. You are trully seeing the interior of earth when you plot those graphs!!!

You reasoning would apply to this: I cant see under my skin with my own eyes because flesh is opaque and transmit no light to the interior and bones ar not reflective enought to make the light come back to reach my eyes. But we have X-Rays that allow us to see through your skin because flesh is transparent for the frequencies of the X-ray band of the electromagnetic spectrum and bones are reflective as hell. If you had x-ray vision you would be confident that those are exactly your bones but if you watch the output of an x-ray camera you don't trust it? Would you say that even with all those x-ray images you would need to drill through your skin to be sure that those are your bones and are located exactly like that? Probably not I hope.

To make it simplier: if you don't trust the graphs done by seismometers, not because those are more or less precise, but because they are seismometers and not eyes, then be honest and distrust your own eyes at least with same entusiasm (Descartes). And if you trust your eyes because they are eyes, and they are yours, then be honest and trust the results of far more capable artificial senses.

By the way, if you are not convinced with the fact that seismic analysis has at least the same authority as visual representations of your brain-eye system then convice yourself with this.
 
steeljaw354Date: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 15:20 | Message # 545
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
Well bones and such are inside my body and I can easily feel them any time I want I know they exist, even though we have done seismic analysis, we might have skipped a few spots to do testing, I never said seismology is worse than eyes, but eyes are more trustworthy, what if there happened to be an error in the equipment used and nobody noticed it? Equipment can have errors and such, eyes do as well but we would notice if something is wrong with our eyes.

How do you suppose that the iron ball is kept in the middle? What if it moves off center?


Edited by steeljaw354 - Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 15:24
 
apenpaapDate: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 15:57 | Message # 546
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
If there is an error in a particular piece of seismological equipment, others will still measure correctly, so the discrepancy would be noticed. There's not just a single machine that keeps track of all earthquakes; as far as I know seismometers are fairly cheap and simple machines that you can find with a lot of geologists, as well as in a lot of museums.

I'm no geologist, but I suppose the inner core is kept in the middle by gravity. Heavier elements sink to the centre, especially since the outer core is liquid. If it moved off-centre, I'd imagine pressure (unbelievably high in the core) and gravity would rapidly push the heavier solid material of the inner core back to the centre.





I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
MosfetDate: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 16:37 | Message # 547
World Builder
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 713
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
we would notice if something is wrong with our eyes

not if we are born with something out of the ordinary.
Obviously we are not talking about a single measure made only once. That's not how scientific experiments work. they have to be verifiable with statistical confidence and repeated times again to take care of errors. Data have to be reliable in order of being able to form a theory which explain those data.
Just as underworld reports have to be reliable and repeatable in order to rule out errors.





"Time is illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
Douglas N. Adams
My mods
Asus x555ub: cpu i5-6200u - ram 4gb - gpu nvidia geforce 940m 2gb vram
 
steeljaw354Date: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 17:12 | Message # 548
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
But that still doesn't rule out "Hollow earths" and "Underworlds" inside other worlds.
 
midtskogenDate: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 17:51 | Message # 549
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1667
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
But that still doesn't rule out "Hollow earths" and "Underworlds" inside other worlds.

And the lack of unicorns on Earth doesn't rule out unicorns on other worlds. But unlike "underworlds", there is a scientific theory that can explain how unicorns on other worlds are possible.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
FastFourierTransformDate: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 17:55 | Message # 550
Pioneer
Group: Local Moderators
Spain
Messages: 538
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
eyes do as well but we would notice if something is wrong with our eyes.

First of all. This is wrong. You can compare what your presumption of what an eye should see (your "theory" of the world) with what you see, to either assume that your eyes are malfunctioning or your assumptions about the external world are wrong, but you can't do nothing more. For example if you where born color-blind you would probably never noticed this until someone made experiments on your vision (and this is not something insignificant, is a hell of a difference in terms of vision).
You assume that if something goes wrong it means that you would notice (and not the other way around). This is like assuming that every person that suffers a mental disorder would notice, but this is not always the case. By the way instruments (because they are no more that new senses) can have the same problem. Yes of course. But a sismometer can be put to test far beyond your campabilities. For example, a thermometer can be calibrated with a bunch of other thermometers.

By the way. What you are declaring in this sentence is that optical illusions can't exist (and believe me, there are a lot of them deciving us permanently that I wont show now because I assume it's not necessary). Not only the optical elements of the eye can be misleding you, but also all the data compiling, visual elaboration, pattern searching and recognition algorithms (making some sense of the data your eyes are catching) of the brain are quite unreliable in certain aspects. In fact the mayority of optical illusion are because of our huge inhability to detect and confirm this kind of erroneus perceptions inside our brains.

Quote steeljaw354 ()
I never said seismology is worse than eyes, but eyes are more trustworthy

Well. Then, for the sake of Scientific quest seismology is worse than eyes. That is exactly what I was refering to.

Quote steeljaw354 ()
Well bones and such are inside my body and I can easily feel them any time I want I know they exist

This is also quite wrong. How you feel your bones? you do maybe by pressing your flesh until you notice something is quite solid (one method of many could be squashing the whole planet until you notice there is a solid core in the center), but I guarantee you that your nervous system has not evolved to detect directly the space occupied by different parts in your body inside. Mybe to detect damage of those parts but nothing more. The fact is that if you try to draw a scketch of your bones, with their positions and geometric form you probably wouldn't make it. Medicine (in renaiscence) has been crude many times because of this preciselly. No one in ancient times drawed the bones without having disected a corpse or having acquired a skeleton because "we don't feel our bones".
I can know how your bones look like quite peciselly with X-Ray imaging. And i'm sorry but I can't feel your bones so why I should know they exist if I don't make an experiment myself?

Quote steeljaw354 ()
what if there happened to be an error in the equipment used and nobody noticed it?

Well this could happen but you have to first understand that we have gained certain knowledge about the limits of instruments that allow us to assure something not without dubt, but with less skepticism than that that you have with your own eyes (imagine!!!). There's a whole branch in statistics to mesure how much a mesure could be wrong. There is also a scientific criterion for reliability (I'm sure not the same for our own eyes).

There's also a very importante fact: science don't calms down when we are confident with one experiment or one method but you are confident only with your eyes. If you see an explosion you would be probably not very skeptic. If you feel the breeze of the explosion in your skin only then maybe you would not be so confident in the fact that there has been an explosion. But if you see it, you feel the breeze in your skin, you hear it, and you notice the heat thn you would be enormously more confident that there has been an explosion. You would be relying in 4 different instrumets (non artificial senses in this case), 4 different lines of evidence that point to the same conclussion. And all of this will take us to the next part biggrin :

Quote steeljaw354 ()
How do you suppose that the iron ball is kept in the middle? What if it moves off center?

This is not a supposition. It is a conclusión of an enormous list of experiments made repeted times, by different people, with different instruments and for the quest of totally different and independent lines of evidence. The core is a spheroid at the center with a precisely mesured density.
If you place a seismometer in the US and and an earthquake happens at the opposite side of the world (for example, Vietnam) you would find that the seismic wave didn't arrived with the same intensity to the instrument as was expected. This is because the core has made a "shadow" and you are inside the projection of that shadow. If you plce your sismometer in Canada or in Mexico the signal would be strong. The conclussion is evident: Something placed in the line beetween your sismometer and the epicenter in vietnam is not transparent to seismic waves traveling from there. If you where in canada or Mexico you would be far from the shadow casted by the earth's core and you would notice. Carefully measuring this in different parts of the world you can locate exactly in 3D where the object that cast the shadow is located, and is the center of the planet. By the way, the seismic way that has been blocked by the core could have been partly absorbed and partly reflected. We can detect the reflections of the seismis waves back in the crust. In fact several reflections (the earth crust is like a circular poll, the waves reflect by any obstacle (nucleus) and get reflected by the sides of the pool (the earth crust) creating very specific paterns. We can directly measure those patterns from different directions. Knowing the frequency of the seism (can be measured), the intensity (can be mesured), the location of the seismometer (not very difficoult to know), and the epicenter of the quake (with triangulation) and making this in different parts of the world with a huge system of seismometers we have been capable of making a 3D model of the nucleus (and is quite spheroid). You should have no problem with all of this. If I put my hand in front of your face you would be confident telling me its shape, and your confidence would be rooted inside you not because of magic but because your eyes (our grid of seismometers) can see (detect) the electromagnetic waves (seismic waves) of a light source (an Earth-quake) travelling to my hand (to the core) and getting reflected in a very specific manner (bounce of seismic waves in the core). You could also move your head to allow your eyes to see it in diferrent directions (have seismometers in different locations of the planet to watch from different directions) and make a very precise picture of what my hand looks like in 3D (make a 3D model of the core). If my hand where blocking the light source in fron of you (the quake has happened in a location simetric to the core) you would also discern quite good what's the shape of my hand and if you moved a little bit to see the light (placed seismometers in other countries to see the seismic waves that where blocked) then you would also know the phisical extension of my hand (core) and not only it's shape. Air is transparent to visible electromagnetic waves as the mantle is transparent to seismic waves. Where is the fundamental difference that doesn't allow you to be confident with this? because your eyes are attached to your face? because you where born with them? does that really makes a difference? maybe because you only trust information that is transported by electromagnetic waves and other kinf of waves are not to be considered?

By the way. If light doesn't travel through my hand when I put it in front of you (you see a shadow casted in your retina) doesn't it mean something about the composition of my hand? It tells you that my hand is a more or dense body. It my hand where gaseous it would be translucent and you would see light coming through it. By the same means we can tell the core is solid, quite solid in fact. I didn't tell you the whole story here: the seismic waves don't get totally blocked by the core; Some of them pass through it (much more less than the waves that didn't encounter it) but they get deflected because of something called refraction witch also happens to electromagnetic waves and the waves of a lake. Measuring this distortion of the seismic waves (like the distortion a glass of water makes for the light coming from behind) we can tell something about the mechanical properties of the material (as I could tell you something about the optical properties of the glass of water). Not all materials deflect seismic waves in the same manner. We can by these means tell you even the composition of the core (it's an iron core).

So we can know the shape, location, size and composition of an object "watching" through our seismic eyes!

And with the issue of the different lines of evidence:
We know this not only because of seismometers. We have satellites that "feel the gravitational field", that have mapped concentrations of mass inside the planet from orbit because of the gravitational inhomogenuities that show up in the data. We are also here confident that the core exists and is located at the center with this completly different evidence that mach the other. Do you also think that the law of universal gravitation is less trustworthy than your eyes? Then SpaceEngine has to be a fantasy game.

There is also something that can be made from home: Study the moon. Study a lot the moon. Watch carefully how it orbits the earth and do the same with the orbit of earth around the sun. With mathematics and the knowledge you aquire watching the movements of the two bodies you can arrive to a figure for the mass of the earth. Just maths and the law of gravitation.
When you have the mass of earth start making measurements of the lenght of the shadow of a stick in your backyard at the same moment of the day the same day for many years (yo be confident), then move to another place of the US and repeat. With some math you can compute this data to know the size of earth. Now, with this is trivial to know the volume of earth knowing that the earth is a sphere (something that you can see with your own eyes watching the shadow it cast over the moon in a lunar eclipse) because of simple math. Now you have the mass of the earth and the volume; so you know the main density of the planet as a whole. If you care to do this well you will have a value of 5.515 kg per cubic meter.
Now go to a park near your house and grab a lot of soil. Put the soil in a container (so you know the volume of soil measuring the container) and measure it's wheight. Now you know the density of the soil of the park. Well that's not much so you go around the city and the country collecting rocks and doing the same. You can also drill or venture into caves to take samples. You will find that the densitity of the rocks doesn't varies too much. The density you get is around 3.000 kg per cubic meter.
Well if the exterior part of the planet (that you have probed) has a lower density than the earth as a whole (as you for yourself can measure), then it means that the other part has higher density. This means that the interior of earth has to have a higher density to allow the mass of earth be that with such a low density on the surface. And you know where this points to? To the existence of a higher concentration of mass down the earth. This is another line of evidence that matches the other two.

I'm not a geophysicits but there are probably more lines of evidence (and more robust that what I have shown). Is like if you hear, see, smell, feel an explosion in fron of you. This is trustworthy my friend. As the X ray-image can be for your bones. And remember you can't know how the shape of your bones are with your biological senses if you dont take out all the flesh and watch it with your eyes. This is how science works.

Sorry for my not-so-brilliant English. tongue

Edit: And all of this only accounting for the experimental aproach to the issue. I haven't talked yet for the theoretical aproach. A really important part for all of this (something that your eyes can't do but science can)
 
MosfetDate: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 18:08 | Message # 551
World Builder
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 713
Status: Offline
Quote
But that still doesn't rule out "Hollow earths" and "Underworlds" inside other worlds.

Neither worlds made of cotton candy, per your reasoning.

When you have reached some conclusions with scientific confidence, you may have some confidence in applying those models to other worlds.

We know some asteroids are caved or sponge-like because we measured some physical properties or orbital parameters that can be interpreted only with those scenarios, as far as we know.
Wildly speculating is not science, it's science-fiction. Could be true, but the only reasonable and logical answer is "We know only so far". If what we know so far can explain the universe around us "to a certain range of precision" we use that principle, until we reach some boundary where the theory doesn't satisfy data observed, and if we keep finding those data correct, only then the theory must be refined or changed.
It doesn't mean that the theory is useless, though, because can be used to a certain range of precision.
Just as Newton's law of gravitation is a particular case for the broader Einstein's general relativity.





"Time is illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
Douglas N. Adams
My mods
Asus x555ub: cpu i5-6200u - ram 4gb - gpu nvidia geforce 940m 2gb vram


Edited by Mosfet - Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 18:09
 
midtskogenDate: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 18:18 | Message # 552
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1667
Status: Offline
Quote apenpaap ()
as far as I know seismometers are fairly cheap and simple machines that you can find with a lot of geologists, as well as in a lot of museums.

I have a seismometer in my basement, an awesome and fantastically simple mechanical instrument capable of detecting M6 quakes anywhere in the world, bought from the UK for 400 quid about ten years ago.

It's given me a couple of interesting moments. Such as after the 2011 M9 earthquake in Japan, when I could watch the seismometer's boom physically move due to the ground movement here in Norway 8000 km away. And after the M6 earthquake in California in 2014, when I was shaken awake, 40 km from the epicentre, and I then logged on my computer at home waiting for the quake that I just experienced to propagate all the way to Norway and getting recorded by my seismometer.

Attachments: 3143031.jpg(65Kb)





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI


Edited by midtskogen - Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 18:20
 
steeljaw354Date: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 19:11 | Message # 553
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
The universe is so huge that even just one of these so called "hollow" earths probably do exist, just like russel's teapot. You can't disprove what happens in a galaxy millions of light years away. I never actually said the earth was hollow, I once said it might be

Well worlds with the density of cotton candy probably do exist.


Edited by steeljaw354 - Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 19:20
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 20:01 | Message # 554
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
The universe is so huge that even just one of these so called "hollow" earths probably do exist, just like russel's teapot.

The whole point of Russell's teapot is to show that even if you can't disprove the existence of something, there's no good reason to believe it exists until compelling evidence of its existence is presented. The same is even more true of hollow worlds; not only do we have no evidence that any such worlds exist, but our already-robust theories of planet formation do not allow for such worlds to form in the first place. So not only is there no reason to suspect that they DO exist, there is reason to suspect that they do NOT exist.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
steeljaw354Date: Tuesday, 21.06.2016, 20:03 | Message # 555
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
Artificial ones?
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Science and Astronomy Discussions » Science and Astronomy Questions
Page 37 of 64«1235363738396364»
Search: