Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Earth = liquid ball with semi-solid shell

Expand Messages
  • DDeden
    ... In the space rocket Apollo, the astronaut had a ball of water that floated in the space vehicle. The ball was a perfect sphere. How can that be called
    Message 1 of 14 , Nov 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "bender_renato" <bender_renato@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "DDeden" <alas_my_loves@> wrote:
      > >
      > > The absence of transverse waves traveling through the earth’s core
      > > shows that it is liquid. (wikipedia)
      > >
      > > The solunar tides are not limited to the hydrosphere.
      > >
      > > The continental cracks and tectonic rifting must be relative to the
      > > solunar tides regarding both gravity and radiation.
      > >
      > > Water is not formless, it is spherical, as are other fluids.>
      >
      > ???? What do you mean with "water is spherical?" Do you have
      > references on this? Or is this part of a naturalphilosophical
      > speculation you have?
      > Renato

      In the space rocket Apollo, the astronaut had a ball of water that
      floated in the space vehicle. The ball was a perfect sphere. How can
      that be called "formless"? It can not. Water as fluid is only
      spherical. On the Earth's surface, it also is spherical, note the
      curvature of the oceans. When scientists say water is formless, they
      are thinking that they live on a flat land, this is not correct.

      Fluids are always spherical, their chemical bonds are always curved.
      Solids are never spherical, their chemical bonds are straight.

      Solid shells may be icosahedral, or like a buckyball, sphere-like, but
      never perfect sphere form, due to the angles of the rigid (straight)
      bonds.

      Do you disagree with this Renato?
      DD
    • Marc Verhaegen
      ... It is about physics-chemistry, Renato: bonds between water molecules. Rain falls in drops. --Marc
      Message 2 of 14 , Nov 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Op 01-11-2007 11:14, bender_renato <bender_renato@...> schreef:

        > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "DDeden" <alas_my_loves@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "bender_renato" <bender_renato@> wrote:
        >>>
        >>> --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "DDeden" <alas_my_loves@> wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>> The absence of transverse waves traveling through the
        > earth’s core
        >>>> shows that it is liquid. (wikipedia)
        >>>>
        >>>> The solunar tides are not limited to the hydrosphere.
        >>>>
        >>>> The continental cracks and tectonic rifting must be relative
        > to the
        >>>> solunar tides regarding both gravity and radiation.
        >>>>
        >>>> Water is not formless, it is spherical, as are other fluids.>
        >>>
        >>> ???? What do you mean with "water is spherical?" Do you have
        >>> references on this? Or is this part of a naturalphilosophical
        >>> speculation you have?
        >>> Renato
        >>
        >> In the space rocket Apollo, the astronaut had a ball of water that
        >> floated in the space vehicle. The ball was a perfect sphere. How
        > can
        >> that be called "formless"? It can not. Water as fluid is only
        >> spherical. On the Earth's surface, it also is spherical, note the
        >> curvature of the oceans. When scientists say water is formless,
        > they
        >> are thinking that they live on a flat land, this is not correct.
        >>
        >> Fluids are always spherical, their chemical bonds are always
        > curved.
        >> Solids are never spherical, their chemical bonds are straight.
        >>
        >> Solid shells may be icosahedral, or like a buckyball, sphere-like,
        > but
        >> never perfect sphere form, due to the angles of the rigid
        > (straight)
        >> bonds.
        >>
        >> Do you disagree with this Renato?
        >> DD
        >>
        > It is difficult even to discuss about this. It is not about physic,
        > it is not about chemistry, it is about something else, right?
        >
        > "Spherical things" seem to be important for you, right? As you would
        > see there a kind of magic concept "explaining" the structure of the
        > universe or something like this.
        >
        > Once I posted a message about jellyfish (symbiosis with crab), and
        > you began also to talk about the "ideal spheric form", and latter
        > about the tendency of plants (I think you wrote about leaves) to get
        > spheric. I do want to insult you, but I get headache reading such
        > stuff. Or am I missing something here?
        > Renato

        :-D

        It is about physics-chemistry, Renato: bonds between water molecules. Rain
        falls in drops.

        --Marc
      • bender_renato
        ... earth’s core ... to the ... can ... they ... curved. ... but ... (straight) ... It is difficult even to discuss about this. It is not about physic, it is
        Message 3 of 14 , Nov 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "DDeden" <alas_my_loves@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "bender_renato" <bender_renato@> wrote:
          > >
          > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "DDeden" <alas_my_loves@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > The absence of transverse waves traveling through the
          earth’s core
          > > > shows that it is liquid. (wikipedia)
          > > >
          > > > The solunar tides are not limited to the hydrosphere.
          > > >
          > > > The continental cracks and tectonic rifting must be relative
          to the
          > > > solunar tides regarding both gravity and radiation.
          > > >
          > > > Water is not formless, it is spherical, as are other fluids.>
          > >
          > > ???? What do you mean with "water is spherical?" Do you have
          > > references on this? Or is this part of a naturalphilosophical
          > > speculation you have?
          > > Renato
          >
          > In the space rocket Apollo, the astronaut had a ball of water that
          > floated in the space vehicle. The ball was a perfect sphere. How
          can
          > that be called "formless"? It can not. Water as fluid is only
          > spherical. On the Earth's surface, it also is spherical, note the
          > curvature of the oceans. When scientists say water is formless,
          they
          > are thinking that they live on a flat land, this is not correct.
          >
          > Fluids are always spherical, their chemical bonds are always
          curved.
          > Solids are never spherical, their chemical bonds are straight.
          >
          > Solid shells may be icosahedral, or like a buckyball, sphere-like,
          but
          > never perfect sphere form, due to the angles of the rigid
          (straight)
          > bonds.
          >
          > Do you disagree with this Renato?
          > DD
          >
          It is difficult even to discuss about this. It is not about physic,
          it is not about chemistry, it is about something else, right?

          "Spherical things" seem to be important for you, right? As you would
          see there a kind of magic concept "explaining" the structure of the
          universe or something like this.

          Once I posted a message about jellyfish (symbiosis with crab), and
          you began also to talk about the "ideal spheric form", and latter
          about the tendency of plants (I think you wrote about leaves) to get
          spheric. I do want to insult you, but I get headache reading such
          stuff. Or am I missing something here?
          Renato
        • bender_renato
          ... that ... the ... like, ... physic, ... would ... the ... and ... get ... molecules. Rain ... About physics-chemistry? I do not agree (see above: trend to
          Message 4 of 14 , Nov 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <marc.verhaegen@...>
            wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Op 01-11-2007 11:14, bender_renato <bender_renato@...> schreef:
            >
            > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "DDeden" <alas_my_loves@> wrote:
            > >>
            > >> --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "bender_renato" <bender_renato@>
            wrote:
            > >>>
            > >>> --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "DDeden" <alas_my_loves@> wrote:
            > >>>>
            > >>>> The absence of transverse waves traveling through the
            > > earth’s core
            > >>>> shows that it is liquid. (wikipedia)
            > >>>>
            > >>>> The solunar tides are not limited to the hydrosphere.
            > >>>>
            > >>>> The continental cracks and tectonic rifting must be relative
            > > to the
            > >>>> solunar tides regarding both gravity and radiation.
            > >>>>
            > >>>> Water is not formless, it is spherical, as are other fluids.>
            > >>>
            > >>> ???? What do you mean with "water is spherical?" Do you have
            > >>> references on this? Or is this part of a naturalphilosophical
            > >>> speculation you have?
            > >>> Renato
            > >>
            > >> In the space rocket Apollo, the astronaut had a ball of water
            that
            > >> floated in the space vehicle. The ball was a perfect sphere. How
            > > can
            > >> that be called "formless"? It can not. Water as fluid is only
            > >> spherical. On the Earth's surface, it also is spherical, note
            the
            > >> curvature of the oceans. When scientists say water is formless,
            > > they
            > >> are thinking that they live on a flat land, this is not correct.
            > >>
            > >> Fluids are always spherical, their chemical bonds are always
            > > curved.
            > >> Solids are never spherical, their chemical bonds are straight.
            > >>
            > >> Solid shells may be icosahedral, or like a buckyball, sphere-
            like,
            > > but
            > >> never perfect sphere form, due to the angles of the rigid
            > > (straight)
            > >> bonds.
            > >>
            > >> Do you disagree with this Renato?
            > >> DD
            > >>
            > > It is difficult even to discuss about this. It is not about
            physic,
            > > it is not about chemistry, it is about something else, right?
            > >
            > > "Spherical things" seem to be important for you, right? As you
            would
            > > see there a kind of magic concept "explaining" the structure of
            the
            > > universe or something like this.
            > >
            > > Once I posted a message about jellyfish (symbiosis with crab),
            and
            > > you began also to talk about the "ideal spheric form", and latter
            > > about the tendency of plants (I think you wrote about leaves) to
            get
            > > spheric. I do want to insult you, but I get headache reading such
            > > stuff. Or am I missing something here?
            > > Renato
            >
            > :-D
            >
            > It is about physics-chemistry, Renato: bonds between water
            molecules. Rain
            > falls in drops.
            >
            > --Marc
            >
            About physics-chemistry? I do not agree (see above: trend to spheric
            form of leaves: such trends do not exist!! At least not in the
            planet I am living!). It is about philosophy (naturphilosophy), or
            about mysticism. "Water as fluid is only spheric" is useless in a
            scientific discussion. But in a philosophical debate...well, there
            is everything possible, right?
            Renato
          • DDeden
            ... It s about nature. Simple. Fluids are spherical. You want to call it chemistry or physics or biology or philosophy or hydrology or spherical geomery, I
            Message 5 of 14 , Nov 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "bender_renato" <bender_renato@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "DDeden" <alas_my_loves@> wrote:
              > >
              > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "bender_renato" <bender_renato@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "DDeden" <alas_my_loves@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > The absence of transverse waves traveling through the
              > earth’s core
              > > > > shows that it is liquid. (wikipedia)
              > > > >
              > > > > The solunar tides are not limited to the hydrosphere.
              > > > >
              > > > > The continental cracks and tectonic rifting must be relative
              > to the
              > > > > solunar tides regarding both gravity and radiation.
              > > > >
              > > > > Water is not formless, it is spherical, as are other fluids.>
              > > >
              > > > ???? What do you mean with "water is spherical?" Do you have
              > > > references on this? Or is this part of a naturalphilosophical
              > > > speculation you have?
              > > > Renato
              > >
              > > In the space rocket Apollo, the astronaut had a ball of water that
              > > floated in the space vehicle. The ball was a perfect sphere. How
              > can
              > > that be called "formless"? It can not. Water as fluid is only
              > > spherical. On the Earth's surface, it also is spherical, note the
              > > curvature of the oceans. When scientists say water is formless,
              > they
              > > are thinking that they live on a flat land, this is not correct.
              > >
              > > Fluids are always spherical, their chemical bonds are always
              > curved.
              > > Solids are never spherical, their chemical bonds are straight.
              > >
              > > Solid shells may be icosahedral, or like a buckyball, sphere-like,
              > but
              > > never perfect sphere form, due to the angles of the rigid
              > (straight)
              > > bonds.
              > >
              > > Do you disagree with this Renato?
              > > DD
              > >
              > It is difficult even to discuss about this. It is not about physic,
              > it is not about chemistry, it is about something else, right?

              It's about nature. Simple. Fluids are spherical. You want to call it
              chemistry or physics or biology or philosophy or hydrology or
              spherical geomery, I don't know. Water is fluid. Fluids are spherical.

              >
              > "Spherical things" seem to be important for you, right?

              Water is, Renato.

              As you would
              > see there a kind of magic concept "explaining" the structure of the
              > universe or something like this.

              Aquatic ape = ancestral waterside. Not savanna runners or mountain
              goats. Diving = entering the hydrosphere, becoming one with the water,
              then leaving it to breathe. No magic, just comprehesnion.

              > Once I posted a message about jellyfish (symbiosis with crab), and
              > you began also to talk about the "ideal spheric form", and latter
              > about the tendency of plants (I think you wrote about leaves) to get
              > spheric. I do want to insult you, but I get headache reading such
              > stuff. Or am I missing something here?
              > Renato

              Did you ever see a water drop that is triangular or square? No.

              It is just a reminder that we live on a sphere of water and fluids
              with a solid chrystaline crust of continents that crack, rift, shift
              and drift in a flowing movement based on erosion and deposition caused
              by solunar orbits. Nature 101.
            • DDeden
              ... Renato, you mean an individual leaf, or the ball-like form of branches and leaves on a tree stem? An individual leaf may be oblong or notched or round, but
              Message 6 of 14 , Nov 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "bender_renato" <bender_renato@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <marc.verhaegen@>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Op 01-11-2007 11:14, bender_renato <bender_renato@> schreef:
                > >
                > > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "DDeden" <alas_my_loves@> wrote:
                > > >>
                > > >> --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "bender_renato" <bender_renato@>
                > wrote:
                > > >>>
                > > >>> --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "DDeden" <alas_my_loves@> wrote:
                > > >>>>
                > > >>>> The absence of transverse waves traveling through the
                > > > earth’s core
                > > >>>> shows that it is liquid. (wikipedia)
                > > >>>>
                > > >>>> The solunar tides are not limited to the hydrosphere.
                > > >>>>
                > > >>>> The continental cracks and tectonic rifting must be relative
                > > > to the
                > > >>>> solunar tides regarding both gravity and radiation.
                > > >>>>
                > > >>>> Water is not formless, it is spherical, as are other fluids.>
                > > >>>
                > > >>> ???? What do you mean with "water is spherical?" Do you have
                > > >>> references on this? Or is this part of a naturalphilosophical
                > > >>> speculation you have?
                > > >>> Renato
                > > >>
                > > >> In the space rocket Apollo, the astronaut had a ball of water
                > that
                > > >> floated in the space vehicle. The ball was a perfect sphere. How
                > > > can
                > > >> that be called "formless"? It can not. Water as fluid is only
                > > >> spherical. On the Earth's surface, it also is spherical, note
                > the
                > > >> curvature of the oceans. When scientists say water is formless,
                > > > they
                > > >> are thinking that they live on a flat land, this is not correct.
                > > >>
                > > >> Fluids are always spherical, their chemical bonds are always
                > > > curved.
                > > >> Solids are never spherical, their chemical bonds are straight.
                > > >>
                > > >> Solid shells may be icosahedral, or like a buckyball, sphere-
                > like,
                > > > but
                > > >> never perfect sphere form, due to the angles of the rigid
                > > > (straight)
                > > >> bonds.
                > > >>
                > > >> Do you disagree with this Renato?
                > > >> DD
                > > >>
                > > > It is difficult even to discuss about this. It is not about
                > physic,
                > > > it is not about chemistry, it is about something else, right?
                > > >
                > > > "Spherical things" seem to be important for you, right? As you
                > would
                > > > see there a kind of magic concept "explaining" the structure of
                > the
                > > > universe or something like this.
                > > >
                > > > Once I posted a message about jellyfish (symbiosis with crab),
                > and
                > > > you began also to talk about the "ideal spheric form", and latter
                > > > about the tendency of plants (I think you wrote about leaves) to
                > get
                > > > spheric. I do want to insult you, but I get headache reading such
                > > > stuff. Or am I missing something here?
                > > > Renato
                > >
                > > :-D
                > >
                > > It is about physics-chemistry, Renato: bonds between water
                > molecules. Rain
                > > falls in drops.
                > >
                > > --Marc
                > >
                > About physics-chemistry? I do not agree (see above: trend to spheric
                > form of leaves: such trends do not exist!! At least not in the
                > planet I am living!).

                Renato, you mean an individual leaf, or the ball-like form of branches
                and leaves on a tree stem? An individual leaf may be oblong or notched
                or round, but never spherical.

                It is about philosophy (naturphilosophy), or
                > about mysticism.

                What is mystical about a ball of water floating in space?

                "Water as fluid is only spheric" is useless in a
                > scientific discussion.

                Only because some people cannot grasp that we live on a spherical
                water planet. They simply never realized reality before.

                But in a philosophical debate...well, there
                > is everything possible, right?
                > Renato

                Nothing is not.
              • Ken Moore
                ... Water in free fall approximates to spherical, because of surface tension and self gravity, but Apollo astronauts were in a non-uniform gravitational field,
                Message 7 of 14 , Nov 3, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  DDeden wrote:
                  >
                  > In the space rocket Apollo, the astronaut had a ball of water that
                  > floated in the space vehicle. The ball was a
                  > perfect sphere.
                  >
                  Water in free fall approximates to spherical, because of surface tension
                  and self gravity, but Apollo astronauts were in a non-uniform
                  gravitational field, so the water would have been distorted slightly
                  (v.difficult to measure) away from a perfect sphere by the gravitational
                  gradient, otherwise known as the tidal effect
                  >
                  > How can that be called "formless"? It can not. Water as fluid is only
                  > spherical. On the Earth's surface, it also is spherical, note the
                  > curvature of the oceans.
                  >
                  The oceans are more obviously not spherical, as the existence of tides
                  demonstrates. Temperature also makes a difference: warm water above 4
                  degrees C produces a higher sea surface.

                  --
                  Ken Moore
                • DDeden
                  AFAICT Gravity = density = surface tension = spherical fluid World ocean = nearly perfect sphere Water = spherical fluid Oceanic tides and waves are surface
                  Message 8 of 14 , Nov 3, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    AFAICT

                    Gravity = density = surface tension = spherical fluid

                    World ocean = nearly perfect sphere

                    Water = spherical fluid

                    Oceanic tides and waves are surface oscillations, they don't change
                    the overall sphericity.

                    Earthquakes are subsurface oscillations which also do not change the
                    overall sphericity.

                    Interesting, the video of water boiling on earth (bubbles rise to top
                    of beaker) and on the ISS (bubbles stay at the center of the beaker).


                    --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Ken Moore <ken@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > DDeden wrote:
                    > >
                    > > In the space rocket Apollo, the astronaut had a ball of water that
                    > > floated in the space vehicle. The ball was a
                    > > perfect sphere.
                    > >
                    > Water in free fall approximates to spherical, because of surface
                    tension
                    > and self gravity, but Apollo astronauts were in a non-uniform
                    > gravitational field, so the water would have been distorted slightly
                    > (v.difficult to measure) away from a perfect sphere by the
                    gravitational
                    > gradient, otherwise known as the tidal effect
                    > >
                    > > How can that be called "formless"? It can not. Water as fluid is only
                    > > spherical. On the Earth's surface, it also is spherical, note the
                    > > curvature of the oceans.
                    > >
                    > The oceans are more obviously not spherical, as the existence of tides
                    > demonstrates. Temperature also makes a difference: warm water above 4
                    > degrees C produces a higher sea surface.
                    >
                    > --
                    > Ken Moore
                    >
                  • Ken Moore
                    ... The problem appears to me that you are in a minority in believing this inaccurate statement. Spheroidal, yes; spherical no. Several effects cause
                    Message 9 of 14 , Nov 4, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      DDeden wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In AAT@yahoogroups. com <mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com>,
                      > "bender_renato" <bender_renato@ ...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > "Water as fluid is only spheric" is useless in a
                      > > scientific discussion.
                      >
                      > Only because some people cannot grasp that we live on a spherical
                      > water planet. They simply never realized reality before.
                      >
                      The problem appears to me that you are in a minority in believing this
                      inaccurate statement. Spheroidal, yes; spherical no. Several effects
                      cause departures from spherical:

                      1) The Earth's rotation, causing an equatorial bulge. If this were the
                      only effect, the shape of the water surface would be an oblate spheroid
                      (i.e. flattened at the poles).

                      2) The gravitational gradient caused primarily by the moon, secondarily
                      by the sun, very much smaller effects by all other massive objects in
                      the universe.

                      3) Temperature variation causing variations in density and evaporation
                      rates.

                      4) Wind, causing large scale effects of water piling up on coasts and
                      smaller scale waves.

                      5) Departures of the Earth's gravitational field from spherically
                      symmetric, because of variation in density and shape, primarily
                      associated with tectonic movements. An example might be a coastal
                      mountain range attracting the adjacent sea towards it. There will also
                      be an effect from the ellipticity of the equatorial crust.

                      --
                      Ken Moore
                    • DDeden
                      ... Ken, is it not obvious that a planet such as Earth, a marble, a bubble, a water ball all share the sphere form, as opposed to formless or cubic? You are
                      Message 10 of 14 , Nov 4, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Ken Moore <ken@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > DDeden wrote:
                        > >
                        > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups. com <mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com>,
                        > > "bender_renato" <bender_renato@ ...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > "Water as fluid is only spheric" is useless in a
                        > > > scientific discussion.
                        > >
                        > > Only because some people cannot grasp that we live on a spherical
                        > > water planet. They simply never realized reality before.
                        > >
                        > The problem appears to me that you are in a minority in believing this
                        > inaccurate statement.

                        Ken, is it not obvious that a planet such as Earth, a marble, a
                        bubble, a water ball all share the sphere form, as opposed to formless
                        or cubic? You are arguing that Earth is not spherical, yet among all
                        general forms, only the sphere remotely approaches the form of the
                        Earth. If you measure a marble, you will find it is also not a perfect
                        sphere, do you then call it a cube?


                        Spheroidal, yes; spherical no.

                        Spherical is the general sense.


                        Several effects
                        > cause departures from spherical:
                        >
                        > 1) The Earth's rotation, causing an equatorial bulge. If this were the
                        > only effect, the shape of the water surface would be an oblate
                        spheroid
                        > (i.e. flattened at the poles).
                        >
                        > 2) The gravitational gradient caused primarily by the moon, secondarily
                        > by the sun, very much smaller effects by all other massive objects in
                        > the universe.
                        >
                        > 3) Temperature variation causing variations in density and evaporation
                        > rates.
                        >
                        > 4) Wind, causing large scale effects of water piling up on coasts and
                        > smaller scale waves.
                        >
                        > 5) Departures of the Earth's gravitational field from spherically
                        > symmetric, because of variation in density and shape, primarily
                        > associated with tectonic movements. An example might be a coastal
                        > mountain range attracting the adjacent sea towards it. There will also
                        > be an effect from the ellipticity of the equatorial crust.
                        >
                        > --
                        > Ken Moore

                        Ken, think of the Earth's shape over periods of time, including
                        movements of the poles. The longer the time frame, the more spherical
                        the shape. By taking a "snapshot" of the planet and taking measure of
                        it through a short time span, you will find it is out of round. The
                        same mistake would be seen by measuring a car tyre while the car is
                        moving, a snapshot would reveal a flat spot at base of the tyre, while
                        a video would more clearly show that the tyre itself is round.

                        Time is part of the formula.
                        DD
                      • Ken Moore
                        ... No, I might call it a marble, and if I found it was nearly spherical I might report its shape by its departures from perfection. ... Why use the wrong word
                        Message 11 of 14 , Nov 5, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          DDeden wrote:
                          >
                          > If you measure a marble, you will find it is also not a perfect
                          > sphere, do you then call it a cube?
                          >
                          No, I might call it a marble, and if I found it was nearly spherical I
                          might report its shape by its departures from perfection.
                          >
                          >
                          > KCM > Spheroidal, yes; spherical
                          > no. Spherical is the
                          > general sense.
                          >
                          Why use the wrong word when the right one exists?

                          --
                          Ken Moore
                        • Daud Deden
                          ... Presumably mathematical perfection, which depends completely on the measuring device and method, which is thus dependent on definition. ... Both are right,
                          Message 12 of 14 , Nov 5, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- Ken Moore <ken@...> wrote:

                            > DDeden wrote:
                            > >
                            > > If you measure a marble, you will find it is also
                            > not a perfect
                            > > sphere, do you then call it a cube?
                            > >
                            > No, I might call it a marble, and if I found it was
                            > nearly spherical I
                            > might report its shape by its departures from
                            > perfection.

                            Presumably mathematical perfection, which depends
                            completely on the measuring device and method, which
                            is thus dependent on definition.

                            > >
                            > >
                            > > KCM > Spheroidal, yes; spherical
                            > > no.
                            > Spherical is the
                            > > general sense.
                            > >
                            > Why use the wrong word when the right one exists?
                            >
                            > --
                            > Ken Moore


                            Both are right, depending on the time frame.
                            Spheroidal at any one moment, spherical over the
                            longer term, averaged out. But even there, I'm merely
                            claiming generally spherical, not mathematically
                            perfectly spherical.



                            __________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                            http://mail.yahoo.com
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.