Here's the skinny, according to a slew of recent articles. The Earth's core rotates faster than the rest of the Earth.
Where do I start?
How about on the obvious: Empirical science doesn't bother to ask the question, what is the current force that is causing the Earth to rotate, because it has made up some sort of historical hocus pocus about a swirling mass of gas and then invented momentum, the tendency of an object to move from the force applied to it until other forces overcome that movement, then deluded itself into notions consistent with the non-explanation like the atmosphere of the Earth doesn't cause friction on its surface and the Earth, with its frictionless atmosphere, is spinning in a vacuum, empty space, both of which are refutable by simple observation.
Let me elucidate on the motion business for a minute. Newton, when he attempted to mathematically prove that gravity was a property of and proportional to matter, had to make one heck of an assumption. He had to assume that if it weren't for gravity, the moon would be traveling in a straight line. He needed to make this assumption in order to show his computation of gravity, based on the volume of the Earth and the moon (he assumed each was made out of the same particle uniformly distributed throughout each) would match the force needed to change the moon's straight-line motion.
Of course, the Earth and the moon aren't uniformly made up of the same particles and nothing, absolutely nothing, except for something responding unhindered to gravity, moves in a straight line. If we drop a ball, it drops in a straight line, but only because of gravity. Nothing else, nothing in the entire universe, moves in a straight line otherwise simply because things don't move unless a force is acting upon them to make them move.
To conjure up his straight-line motion, Newton did a little hocus pocus with the known laws of motion. He took the known fact that something resting on the surface of the Earth won't move without the application of force and turned it into a dual statement that sounds very reasonable. Galileo rolled balls down a ramp and allowed them to drop, noting the forward momentum in relation to the drop to compute the inverse square law of gravity. Galileo called the forward motion after the ball left the ramp momentum, momentum received from rolling down the ramp. He knew, as everyone before him knew, that once the ball hit the floor, it would come to rest motionless. Thus, he could make the statement that an object at rest will stay at rest until a force acts upon it to change its position.
Newton adopted this, but in a format that suggested that an object that was already moving would continue to move unless a force caused it to come to rest. Nowhere in science or reality is there a situation the reflects this, but it is, of course, logically true so long as an object has a force keeping it in motion. But Newton simply said objects at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line will only change their position in response to the application of force. We've believed a lot of dumb things, but I doubt anything is dumber than believing that there are objects in the universe that travel in straight lines without the application of force.
Newton believed he was closer to God than most and that his discoveries were discoveries given him by God. With the belief in God universal in the 17th Century, no one would dare question Newton's assumption that God put the moon and planets moving in a straight line and came back periodically to keep them in motion. Toward the end of the 18th Century, when mathematical scientists were beginning to remove God from the equation, they had to make up some reason why the moon and the planets were rotating and orbiting, and that's when Laplace came up with his fantasy of a swirling mass of gas.
It's also when the realization that Newton's mathematical proof didn't work for the moon, let alone any other body in the solar system hit the emerging empirical community and it had to do something to save Newton, now the God of empirical science. The thinkers of the day concluded that while Newton's mathematical shenanigans couldn't predict the orbits of the planets, it could be applied to the orbits of the planets to compute the amount of matter in the planets, something which can never be tested or verified and therefore the perfect empirical scientific explanation for something.
This is what led to the conclusion that the Earth has an iron core the size of the moon in the first place, but we'll get to that in a moment. Finishing up the business on motion, finding the fact that objects come to rest with respect to the forces acting upon them leads to certain conclusion about motion in general. Empirical science loves to use a billiard table to demonstrate its laws of motion, noting that the balls are motionless before being struck. However, the balls are anything but motionless. They are traveling up to 1,000 mph, depending on their position on the surface of the Earth because the Earth is rotating. They are traveling about 68,000 mph as the Earth orbits the sun and they are traveling a little over 310 mph as the sun moves with the galaxy.
If the balls are at rest with respect to the forces acting upon them, then so is everything in the solar system. We look at the planets and see them move, but they are not moving as a result of some magical momentum in manufactured empty space, they are moving with respect to the forces acting upon them and each has a different degree of force acting upon it. Empirical science is simply too dumb to ask the question, what are the current forces acting on the matter that makes up the solar system that makes them seem to move with respect to one another although we know they have to be at rest with respect to the forces acting upon them.
That latter statement, of course, that an object is at rest with respect to the forces acting upon it, is the true law of motion.
Getting back to super-rotation, let's look at rotation. Empirical science claims the Earth rotates as a result of force imparted to it 5 billion years ago by the swirling mass of gas. If gravity is the only force in the universe, what the heck set the gas swirling in the first place? Well, little questions like that are consigned to the same place asking what makes an electron orbit an atom is consigned. If you bring it up, you get thrown out, no matter what your credentials.
If gravity is the only force in the universe, then the gas would clump together. Instead, it swirls in response to something, Brownian motion, perhaps, but hey, that's random motion so perhaps like Darwinian life, the swirling was just a one in a trillion trillion happenstance. So empirical science assumes the planet has been rotating for 5 billion years. What about the matter in space? Wouldn't that cause friction? No, no friction in space because space is a vacuum. But we known our satellites don't maintain their momentum and have to be continually adjusted to stay in orbit. Well, empirical science replies, you know what's happening there, molecules of air are hitting them and therefore Newton's calculations are correct, as are his laws of motion. The molecules of air are slowing the satellites down. If that's true, the molecules of air must be slowing the Earth down because there are a heck of a lot more molecules on the surface of the Earth than there are a couple of hundred miles up. Oh, gosh no, empirical science answers. There's no friction between the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere. Proof of the statement is self-evident. The Earth would have long ago slowed down and stopped rotating if there were friction between its surface and the atmosphere. But, isn't that an argument there's a current force maintaining its rotation? Get the hell out of here, you ignorant jackass, empirical science answers.
So at the outset, because empirical science doesn't address the most basic question, what force is causing the Earth to rotate, it can make the statement, the core of the Earth is rotating faster than the surface of the Earth without danger of the ridicule such a ridiculous statement would receive if people making the statement would exchange their self-created credentials for the pointy hats with the bright stars and the robes with long loopy sleeves for pointing into the future their ancestors, who made equally idiotic statements to gullible kings and princes, wore as a symbol of authority.
When you don't know why something rotates in the first place, there's no reason why parts of it can't rotate at different speeds.
Moving on, these twits claim that the inner core plays an important role in the geodynamo, the process that generates the Earth's magnetic field. Let's see if we can parse this a little. A magnet is a material found naturally in nature, although we can create a magnet from certain materials using electrical coils and the inductance those coils produce. When shaped and hung on a string, one end of the magnet will always point north. When two magnets are put in proximity, the sides that point north will repel each other, but the side that points north will attract the side that points south.
Thus, there is clearly something about the way the Earth is operating that produces a magnetic field.
However, other than creating the law of nature, that likes repel and opposites attract, empirical science has no explanation whatsoever for how a magnet works. It simply doesn't address the problem because it doesn't want to display its ignorance.
Therefore, when it comes to the Earth's magnetic field, and the need to find an answer for it, they do the same thing they do with everything else, they make up a word, geodynamo, which is then bruited about as the "process" that causes the Earth's magnetic field. The phase geodynamo is just as meaningless as the other assertions of empirical science dealing with force, but, hey, it doesn't have the foggiest idea about the nature of magnetism, so why shouldn't it be able to pretend it knows everything about the magnetic nature of the Earth.
The explanation of geodynamo is just as unrealistic as the explanation for gravity. The inner core spinning in the molten mass of the liquid outer core generates the electrical currents that produce the planet's magnetic field. Haven't seen too many, well, none in fact, generators that produce electricity on this principle, rotating an iron ball in liquid molten rock. Might just be too hard to test in reality.
Thus, the assertion by the empiricists who are saying the core spins faster than the surface of the Earth first assume that there is an inner core, even though their training probably has nothing to do with the stupidity that led to the conclusion that there is an inner core, they then assumed the inner core was the source of the Earth's magnetic field even though that too is outside their field of training, and they then magnify the "accomplishment" of their statement by claiming that this "knowledge" about how the inner core works will bolster "our" understanding of the geodynamo.
Can there be more gibberish than this?
Now to the proof.
Earthquakes set off vibrations that travel through the Earth. The time it took the wave to travel in an earthquake in 1993 was compared to the time it took to travel in an earthquake occurring in 2003, and found to be faster, faster being one tenth of a second faster. Another fact is, the waves themselves change shape over time.
Wave, of course, is a concept applied to light. It's a wave so it doesn't exist, except when it's a particle and does exist. In fact, light is a frequency, as are the vibrations detected in earthquakes. Our equipment has been designed to show frequencies in wave format and even print out those frequencies in wave format, so I'm not even going to bother talking about the logical implications of the waves changing shape. Besides, the time assertion serves as an example of the absurdity of using these measured frequencies to conclude the made-up iron core of the Earth is moving faster than its surface.
The deductive premise of the time assertion is, the waves pass through the Earth faster, and the conclusion to that deductive premise is the inner core is moving faster.
Golly, have you ever seen anything follow so logically. As I wrote last week, deduction is not an appropriate process to uncover the nature of physical reality, but at least when you use it, you go from theory to hypothesis to observation to confirmation. John has two pens, Mary has two pens, John and Mary have four pens.
Here, the waves travel faster, the core is spinning faster. Some correlation, but then it's a typical empirical correlation because it's no correlation at all.
Once the conclusion is made, the core travels faster, then the explanations start to flow. It seems that the crystals in most of the iron core are structured in a grain, as in wood. Waves speed up or slow down depending on how they pass through the grain. Now for the really neat part. These birdbaths go on to explain exactly where the core is in relation to the surface because, with the waves speeding up, it could only mean the grains are steadily aligning in a way that provides a quicker path. Thus, the inner core is aligning at a rate of from .3 to .5 degrees per year faster than the surface of the Earth.
Now for the real kicker. The finding is unambiguous and removes any lingering doubt that the inner core is traveling faster than the surface of the Earth. These empirically educated people are seismologists and geophysicists. They start with the premise that Newton uncovered a law of the universe, and then proceed to use Newton's flawed conclusions, unquestioningly, mindlessly, dumbly, vacuously, to make conclusions about something they can never know about, the composition of the Earth. It is the perfect illustration of a community of educated men living in a world of total fantasy, arguing back and forth for years about something none of them know anything at all about, and then when they make up something that everyone can agree to, when they reach a consensus, their fantasies become unambiguous, removing all lingering doubts, and us dumb bunnies sit here and swallow the fantasy as our reality.
Not too good for our future, for sure, not to mention how much money we're paying these twits to examine each other's navels. Success in the world of empirical science, like beauty in the fashion world, is no marker for intelligence, contribution, accomplishment, and most certainly not for usefulness, for contributing to our understanding and the advancement of our technology that will allow us to survive in the universe.
Peter Bros is the author of the 9 volume Copernican Series and is President of The Far Museum of Dallas, an actual history museum, which will house its collection of 50,000 rare Eastern Mediterranean manuscripts and artifacts together with actual history displays and tours in a full-sized replica of the Egyptian Temple at Dendera to be built in the Dallas Ft. Worth area. Email:peterbros@therealskeptic.com