Consider hydrogen for Earth's Core

[CharlieO]

In response to a request from BUFFY, I have combined my Introduction Posts into a new thread for Earth Science enthusiasts to review.

 

1. The most popular theory [assumption, concept, guess, etc.] about Earth's composition appears to be based solely on a static model. In this theory, it is assumed that Gravity somehow forced an enormously excessively amount [in comparison to known galactic proportions] of mainly iron to move inward thru molten mantle materials [with temperature only an assumption], leaving other, heavier elements behind [physically impossible], and form proto-Earth's core. This is illogical to the core. [Pun.]

 

2. A dynamic model of Earth includes centrifugal force, a fact which seems to have been ignored in popular assumptions and supporting computations. Because Earth spins [like everything in the universe], it has a bulge at its equator as evidence of this force partially overcoming Gravity. Earth would have also slowed its spin rate over time, so there is no doubt Earth was spinning more rapidly in the past and probably disk shaped. Since Gravity would have even less effect at higher rates of spin, heavy elements could not possibly move into the center of proto-Earth's spinning mass, molten or frozen. Iron would only be found in proto-Earth's surface layers; where it is found today in approximately the expected galactic proportions and remains as physical evidence of the improbability of any iron being in Earth's core.

 

3. Of course, if proto-Earth did not spin, there would be no pesky centrifugal force. Then, Gravity might have forced iron to move into proto-Earth's core, IF Earth was molten to the core and IF such an illogical excess of iron had existed. Unfortunately, under the same assumed conditions, it is doubtful that ALL other elements heavier than iron would somehow stay behind. They, being heavier, might even arrive in the core first.

 

4. So why not a Gold Core or Uranium Core? Using the same theory-assumption-guess of Gravity forcing iron into Earth's core, gold, uranium and other elements heavier than iron would have also been forced into Earth's core and probably be alloyed with the iron. Then Earth's core would have a far greater density than it appears to have today. So the Gravity only model seems highly unlikely.

 

5. Currently, no one really knows the composition or temperature of Earth's interior. No one really knows if there are actually any radioactive elements there to heat the interior with their decay. Earth's interior might in fact be very cold and the only perceived heat flow be originating within continental surface layers and hydrogen-oxygen reactions within Earth's crust.

 

In response to JANUS' claim, "There is the fact that you need a large amount of ferris (iron) material spinning at the center of the Earth to generate its magnetic field. ETC.,"

 

To JANUS and others: Sorry, this "Fact" is another incorrect assumption. In fact, you don't need any amount of ferric material in Earth's core to create a magnetic field. In fact, recent discoveries appear to indicate the "Fact" of "ferris" material being in the core is only an assumption resulting from historical ignorance.

 

1. The initial assumption of Earth's core being of iron was based on the discovery of Earth having a magnetic field when scientists only knew of iron being the only element able to create Earth's magnetic field. However, it was later discovered that Hydrogen can also become a magnetic metal as well as incredibly dense at core pressures, easily capable of generating Earth's magnetic field without any spinning being necessary.

 

2. Earth having an iron core was at first only a logical, albeit ignorant guess, whether true or not. Then a misunderstood calculation by Sir Robert Boyle was used by some scientists to support their assumption that Earth's temperature increased with increasing depth to the degree that Earth's core was also molten. Actually, Boyle only calculated the rate at which temperature increased with increasing depth in Wales tin mines, as a means of settling a miner's pay scale dispute. He also concluded temperatures only increased with increasing depth due to the miner's heat energy input and the decreasing efficiency of air conditioning as depth increased.

 

3. Unfortunately, Boyle's pay scale calculation of temperature increasing with depth was used by self-serving scientists to "prove" their assumption of Earth's core also being molten; to explain how iron could have flowed into the core. Of course, then there was the question of how Earth's core managed to remain molten for billions of years.

 

4. Well, about 100 years ago, the discovery of radioactivity decay was assumed to be the heat creating factor in the mantle which kept Earth's core molten and the answer as to how the core could have stayed molten for billions of years. Unfortunately, radioactive elements are largely located in continental surface layers. A fact which seems to have been conveniently ignored by the Hot Iron Core enthusiasts.

 

5. Then there is the fact that natural openings and sealed, abandoned mines and bore holes in Earth's continental layers get cooler with depth. Nothing except the mines and bore holes being worked will increase in temperature with increasing depth and even they cool off when not being worked, i.e., no longer being injected with heat generating energy.

 

6. More recently, the assumption of increasing heat with increasing depth was complicated by the fact that iron heated above 800C can't generate a magnetic field.

 

7. Therefore, another assumption claimed Earth's inner iron core was rotating within Earth's outer iron core and thus generating a magnetic field. However, the fact is, non-magnetic iron spinning inside non-magnetic iron still can't generate a magnetic field.

 

8. Currently, many self-serving scientists and their graduate students, who can't risk disputing obvious inconsistencies, are now producing experiments and calculations which "prove" the initial assumptions of Earth having a hot iron core and generating Earth's magnetic field by spinning inside its outer iron core are correct. Unfortunately, any calculation, however complex and/or supported by any number of experiments, which includes just one assumed factor, will only produce a result with no validity; except to unquestioning believers.

 

9. So I came to believe the mass of Earth's inner core spinning inside Earth's outer core, surrounded by mantle material at incredible pressures, was science fiction at best. I also came to believe such an illogical series of assumptions supporting the initial assumption of there being an iron core inside Earth were totally unnecessary when a simple, highly possible and most likely core of magnetic, metallic hydrogen is considered as a viable alternative.

 

10. Metallic hydrogen had long been theorized before I learned in the 1950s that Russian researchers had produced small quantities, perhaps even before 1950. They reported it was a "silvery metal" and could exist at ambient temperatures and pressures, plus it had magnetic properties. How they produced it then was not known. However, USA researchers have produced quantities of metallic hydrogen more recently. Therefore, it appears the tremendous pressures within other giant planets may not be required to produce metallic hydrogen on Earth.

 

11. I suspect should hydrogen be compressed slowly to the pressures found within Earth's core, its density should become equal to that required for the core and generate Earth's magnetic field as well. However, I don't believe this experiment has been done as yet, but it may be done soon.

 

12. Many years ago, experimenters at Carnegie Institute did apply near-core pressures to iron and reported the iron molecules became far too dense to compose Earth's core. Then, a critical firestorm from their peers erupted over their report and forced the experimenters to recant, at least for a moment. A good example of dogma believers refusing to even fairly consider the work of those who discover viable alternatives and/or the impossibility of popular assumptions.

 

13. In response to my earlier posts, no one has yet tried to explain how an enormous excess of iron somehow passed thru many other, heavier elements to somehow become Earth's relatively massive core, leaving behind a reasonable amount in Earth's continental layers, or why we don't also have a core of gold or uranium or heavier elements alloyed with this excess of iron IF Gravity were the dominate factor.

 

Just try to consider metallic, magnetic hydrogen as an alternative core material and see what happens.

 

To ALL: If any want to expand their beliefs beyond the popular assumptions regarding Earth's core, there are books and articles by Neil B. Christainson and C. Warren Hunt and others which explain the probability of Earth having a hydrogen core in both greater detail and far better than I. My book on the subject was written too long ago to be a useful reference today. I should also add the possibility of Earth having a hydrogen core was considered very likely by scientists many centuries before the recognition of Earth's magnetic field led to the illogical assumption of Earth having an iron core.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[Turtle]

In response to a request from BUFFY, I have combined my Introduction Posts into a new thread for Earth Science enthusiasts to review.

 

1. The most popular theory [assumption, concept, guess, etc.] about Earth's composition appears to be based solely on a static model. In this theory, it is assumed that Gravity somehow forced an enormously excessively amount [in comparison to known galactic proportions] of mainly iron to move inward thru molten mantle materials [with temperature only an assumption], leaving other, heavier elements behind [physically impossible], and form proto-Earth's core. This is illogical to the core. [Pun.]...

Regards, CharlieO

 

Hi Charlie. The only reason you can even discuss the concept of a 'core', is that seismographic evidence demonstrates it is so. Said evidence produced no less than by those "self-serving scientists." :smart: It doesn't help your case either that you start with ad hominem and unsupported generalizations and mischaracterizations such as "...appears to be soley based on...", "...assumed gravity somehow forced...", etcetera.

 

Get a lava lamp for a little one-on-one time with the effects of temperature, differential density, and gravity on 'stuff'. Cost of lamp,~$17.95; value of lessen = priceless. :D IMHO, of course; blued pun intended. ;) :cup: :)

[Boerseun]

Take a dynamite stick. Take a lot of random stuff. Chuck al lthe random stuff in a pile over the dynamite stick. Light the stick. Run like hell.

 

After the loud, ear-splitting BOOM, go back to the remains of your pile. See what you have left.

 

It seems the lightest of the stuff is blown away. The heaviest pieces will lie closer to the center of the explosion than the rest. That anvil that was standing next to the dynamite has moved a few feet, but the polystyrene box is gone.

 

Same thing happened when the proto cloud that collapsed and formed the sun exploded, sending lotsa hydrogen outbound whilst keeping more of the heavy stuff close. This, as well as the amount of mass floating around in a bigger orbit as opposed to a small one, accounts for the outer planets having much more hydrogen than the inner planets. The inner planets are made of the heavier stuff closer to the star, the lighter stuff got blown out.

 

Also, simple convection and density also plays a role. Take a bucket of mud. Let it stand. See the heavy things sink and the light things float on top. So. If you see a rock on the Earth's surface, what would you suppose the things deeper under the surface would consist of? Big polystyrene boxes or seams of styrene beans?

 

The inner structure and composition of the Earth is not only the result of many years of geologic data, seismic probing, deep drilling and the like, but also the result of applying our minds to what the data tells us.

[CharlieO]

With all due respect for the sincerity of those who take the time and trouble to respond to my inadequate explanations of physical facts as well as my personal assumptions, rest assured your advice and examples are appreciated, even when illogical.

 

Unfortunately, no one has yet offered an understandable explanation of the primary issue: IF Gravity is the dominate factor in Earth's formation and present composition, WHY isn't Earth's core filled with elements materially heavier than iron? According to the popular theory, an enormous excess of iron flowed inward into the core, while also passing thru gold, lead, uranium and many other elements heavier in physical weight. By the same method, these heavier elements, reacting to the force of Gravity, should have beat iron into the core. If so, Earth's core should have far greater density and be massively more heavier than it appears to be today.

 

Unfortunately, after reading some of the illogical explanations, I have little confidence my question on Gravity will ever be answered in this forum. Not surprising, after 40+ years of posing the same question to major professors, professional geologists and many sincere scientists.

 

On the latter point, I must apologize for using the term 'self-serving scientists,' albeit I've known many. I'll include 'serious scientists,' among whom I've known a few and greatly respected them. Hopefully, there are sincere scientists among you who can answer the Gravity-only question as to why Earth's doesn't also have gold, lead, uranium, etc., in its core today. Such would be most welcomed.

 

For those who can seem to understand how centrifugal force behaves in a free floating mass, you have my sympathy. The fact is, the separation of elements in free floating masses, be they bird shot formed in a shot tower or planets and/or suns condensing out of a galactic cloud of hydrogen and other elements, is a physical fact.

 

Lava lamps? Explosions? Please try to be more relevant to the core issue. [Pun.]

 

Regards, CharlieO

[Turtle]

...Unfortunately, after reading some of the illogical explanations, I have little confidence my question on Gravity will ever be answered in this forum. Not surprising, after 40+ years of posing the same question to major professors, professional geologists and many sincere scientists.

...

Lava lamps? Explosions? Please try to be more relevant to the core issue. [Pun.]

 

Regards, CharlieO

 

Ok Charlie, here goes with the relevancy. Unfortunately it is unlikely at this junture that any such potent questions will have their answer on this or any other forum. Either one has what it takes to sway major professors, geologists, etcetera in their venue or one does not.

 

I will leave the arguing of your particulars to others more enthusiastic as our threads here on 'Hydroplate Theory' and 'Expanding Earth' have sucked me dry of all such inclination. Good luck. :hihi:

[CraigD]

IF Gravity is the dominate factor in Earth's formation and present composition, WHY isn't Earth's core filled with elements materially heavier than iron?

Because iron is much more common, on earth, in the solar system, and in the universe, than heavier (greater atomic mass) elements?

 

Earth is about 32% iron, 1.8% nickle, and 1.2% other elements that include about silver, gold, mercury, lead, bismuth, thorium and uranium. There’s no reason to assume that the Earth’s mantle and core doesn’t contain a high concentration of these heavier elements, but given there lower abundance, the core is still expected to be mostly (89%) iron, 5.8% nickle, 4.5% sulfur, and less than 1% other elements. (Source: wikipedia article “Earth”)

According to the popular theory, an enormous excess of iron flowed inward into the core, while also passing thru gold, lead, uranium and many other elements heavier in physical weight. By the same method, these heavier elements, reacting to the force of Gravity, should have beat iron into the core.

Correct. There should be a lot of gold, lead, uranium, and other elements denser than iron in the core.

If so, Earth's core should have far greater density and be massively more heavier than it appears to be today.

No, because:

1. even if all of the Earth’s primordial gold, lead, etc. was in its core, they would still be much less abundant than iron
2. At a density of about 19.1 g/cm^3, even uranium is only a few times more dense than iron, at about 7.8 g/cm^3

It’s helpful to consider why (according to most widely accepted theory) iron is so much more abundant in a stellar system such as ours: Stellar nucleosynthesis builds only small amounts of elements heavier than iron. In short, as has been noted in this and other forums, the stelliferous universe can be considered a ultimately gigantic “hydrogen to iron factory”.

 

It’s also useful to consider why (according to most widely accepted theory) smaller planets such as Earth contain so little of the light elements much more common in the solar system than iron: a combination of solar wind and early-forming giant planets remove most of the available hydrogen and helium from the vicinity of the still-forming smaller planets. Even were a lot of free hydrogen available, a small planet like ours has too little mass, and hence gravity, to prevent it escaping from the atmosphere, given the Earth’s fairly high atmospheric temperature. Essentially and terrestrial hydrogen not chemically bound to other elements is lost to space.

Hopefully, there are sincere scientists among you who can answer the Gravity-only question as to why Earth's doesn't also have gold, lead, uranium, etc., in its core today. Such would be most welcomed.

I’m only an amateur science enthusiast, but am sincere, and believe I’ve answered this question in the preceding part of this post. To restate: Earth does have gold, lead, uranium, etc. in its core – just not, as a fraction of its total mass, much of it.

For those who can seem to understand how centrifugal force behaves in a free floating mass, you have my sympathy. The fact is, the separation of elements in free floating masses, be they bird shot formed in a shot tower or planets and/or suns condensing out of a galactic cloud of hydrogen and other elements, is a physical fact.

Having a bit of experience in the mechanics of gravitationally and elastic collision bound systems (see these forums for some of my gravity and collision simulators), I think I have an adequate understanding of mass and centrifugal pseudo-force. I share the objection Janus raises in this post: for centrifugal force to cause mass segregation, it must exceed the force of gravity. If a cloud of primordial planet stuff rotates so fast that the centrifugal force exceeds the centripetal force of its gravity, no planet forms. In order to use a centrifuge to segregate materials by density, it must be bound by forces stronger than gravity. This is the case for such systems as the small (by planet standards) mechanical centrifuges used to segregate materials ranging from blood parts to radioactive isotopes, but not for planets, which are, especially during their early formation, essentially “gravitationally bound gravel piles”, with very little overall tensile strength.

[CharlieO]

CraigD: Excellent answer, albeit with a few well reasoned assumptions, perhaps better than mine. I'll attempt to explain when I have more time. Right now, we are having a major snow storm and I'm a bit busy arranging electrical connections to prepare for a potential power outage and possible medical emergency. Lucky to still have an active Internet connection for now.

 

I'll leave you with the thought that you might want to brush up on current developments in Geology. Oven the past few years, geophysical measurements have concluded Earth's core is far too light to be of largely iron and the iron assumed to be in Earth's core must be alloyed with lighter elements. Hydrogen is the current assumption favored by many, with others also being considered. If so, heavier elements may be even less common within the core than you might want to believe.

 

Best Regards, Charlie

[OneShotAl]

alot of assumptions and no way to prove any of it. if someone had actually been around 5 or 10 billion years ago to see the solar system form we would "know" how it formed.

we would also know how the earth formed. as for me, i have always felt that jupiter is a captured proto-star, and has a chance to continue to turn into a star 5 or 10 billion years into the future. maybe only a small chance but one chance in a billion is better than no chance.

and since i feel jupiter to be a captured proto-star, why couldn't earth also be captured?

again, no one was there. so no way to prove it either way.

[CharlieO]

CraigD: I'll try to answer your analysis. You have been more thought provoking that most. I thank you for that.

 

You wrote: Earth is about 32% iron, 1.8% nickle, and 1.2% other elements that include about silver, gold, mercury, lead, bismuth, thorium and uranium.

 

CharlieO here: This is at best only an assumption, as it appears to include the amount of iron assumed to be in Earth's core. No one really knows if there is any iron in Earth's core.Meanwhile, published iron content ratios for Oceanic and Continental crusts vary with researchers and/or oil companies doing the reported core drilling and/or mine analysis. The key point is we still don't know it there is any iron in Earth's core and what iron we can find in the crusts appears to be more in proportion to galactic ratios and therefore most likely to be the total amount within Earth.

 

You wrote: There’s no reason to assume that the Earth’s mantle and core doesn't contain a high concentration of these heavier elements.

 

CharlieO here: I believe it is more logical to assume Earth’s mantle and core FAIL to contain a high concentration of these heavier elements, if any.

 

You wrote: The core is still expected to be mostly (89%) iron, 5.8% nickle, 4.5% sulfur, and less than 1% other elements.

 

CharlieO here: These ratios are clearly more assumptions based on assumptions.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

CharlieO here: Oh yes, for those who pointed out the data from seismographic analysis 'proves' this or that, you are preaching to the choir. I'm well aware of seismology as largely guess work, being a child of Oklahoma oil fields, student at Oklahoma University and initially employed by Shell Oil. A seismograph has long been not much better than the skill of its operator/interpreter, however computer assisted devices are doing much better of late.

 

For those with an interest in the device, it was first used in China, around the year 100. That's One Hundred AD. However, the Chinese still depend on hydrogen effusion devices to warn them of impending earthquakes as well as daily observations of bird behavior. When birds leave an area, earthquakes often occur soon afterward. It is their hydrogen effusion devices which can warn to some degree of the expected intensity. It is a fact that when significant amounts of hydrogen gas can be detected in test holes, this is cause for concern. The rate at which hydrogen gas appears has also been correlated with the intensity of earth movement. Apparently, hydrogen can still be found within our Earth.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

CraigD wrote: It’s also useful to consider why (according to most widely accepted theory) smaller planets such as Earth contain so little of the light elements much more common in the solar system than iron:

 

CharlieO here: I consider this to be another most widely accepted assumption, which may be false.

 

You wrote: A combination of solar wind and early-forming giant planets remove most of the available hydrogen and helium from the vicinity of the still-forming smaller planets.

 

CharlieO here: This is not only an assumption, but illogical. Both our sun and giant planets would have to first form into cohesive masses far beyond their present size to attract any available hydrogen and helium from still forming smaller planets.

 

You wrote: Even were a lot of free hydrogen available, a small planet like ours has too little mass, and hence gravity, to prevent it escaping from the atmosphere,

 

CharlieO here: True and this can be demonstrated to be a constant occurrence, albeit it varies widely over time. In fact, there has been an enormous amount of hydrogen constantly venting from within Earth over eons and this obvious hydrogen venting continues to this day. Certainly good evidence of hydrogen still being a major element in Earth's composition.

 

You wrote: Essentially and (any?) terrestrial hydrogen not chemically bound to other elements is lost to space.

 

CharlieO here: True, see above.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CharlieO here: Sorry, I'm going to have to ignore your explanation on centrifugal force.

 

The facts are: Earth has been slowing in its rate of rotation and therefore once rotated much faster. Agreed? At least one researcher claims to have established Earth's rate of rotation as an 8 hour day during the time of dinosaurs. Some have estimated Earth was disk shaped in the not too distant past. Logical, but, in fairness, these could be assumptions. I have too often known of research that became tainted by expectations far different than reality.

 

However, the fact is, all matter spins, from atoms to galaxies, and our solar system is no different. Given these galactic clouds of elements, mainly hydrogen, can be seen spinning and stages in the evolution of these clouds clearly show a slow condensation of elements, mainly hydrogen, can you agree our solar system condensed in a similar manner from a similar cloud of elements, mainly hydrogen?

 

Assuming our solar system condensed in a similar fashion, as it condensed, the mass of elements, mainly hydrogen, would begin to spin faster, due to increasing density as the cloud of elements condensed into a smaller diameter of elements, mainly hydrogen. If so, where did the largest mass of hydrogen accumulate? In the center? Last time I checked our Sun was mainly hydrogen and contained around 95% of the hydrogen in our solar system.

 

Assuming all planets in our solar system condensed from eddies within the spinning cloud of elements, mainly hydrogen, rotating around a central point that later became our sun, can you agree they would all do this within the same time frame? If so, can you agree then there would be no giant planets or a sun with any mass or developed gravitational attraction or solar wind which might enable them to destroy the hydrogen/helium of a few smaller, still forming planets?

 

Given that hydrogen molecules can bond together to form a metallic, magnetic phase, might it be most likely for these magnetic hydrogen molecules to be among the first to gather within this spinning cloud of elements? Once enough hydrogen molecules gathered together and formed a viable mass, wouldn't this spinning mass of magnetic, metallic hydrogen only then be able to attract the molecules of heavier elements within the spinning cloud of elements?

 

Therefore, unless you know of a physical method different than is currently in evidence within our galaxy and universe, I must assume ALL planets in any solar system or galaxy first developed from accumulating hydrogen molecules, which later develop enough mass to attract heavier elements. If so, any spinning planet evolving from a spinning mass of elements, mainly hydrogen, would first have a relatively large hydrogen core; surrounded by a thinner layer of heavier elements, which could only be retained by the gravity of the developing mass as its rate of spin decreased.

 

That is why I believe Earth initially developed a hydrogen core and there is considerable evidence that much of this magnetic, metallic hydrogen core is still there today, albeit constantly venting hydrogen gas thru Earth's crust and reducing its mass as time goes on.

 

As OneShotAL so elequently put it: A lot of assumptions and no way to prove it, or at least what may have happened in the past. However, I can prove hydrogen is still a major factor in Earth's composition today.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[Turtle]

Here's a sample of links and quotes resulting from a Google search for "Earth's core is Hydrogen. (This thread is the 5th link. :))

 

The consensus appears that Hydrogen is in the core, but not instead of iron, but rather combined with it. Now we'll let the quibbling resume and all, but I'm wanting to hear the other shoe drop first. That is, what's the motive in saying the core is Hydrogen? :) Well...here's that information; bolding mine:

 

 

GEOSCIENCE: Enhanced: Hydrogen: An Important Constituent of the Core? -- Wood 278 (5344): 1727 -- Science

 

Hydrogen Partitioning into Molten Iron at High Pressure: Implications for Earth's Core -- Okuchi 278 (5344): 1781 -- Science

Because of dissolution of lighter elements such as sulfur, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, Earth's outer core is about 10 percent less dense than molten iron at the relevant pressure and temperature conditions. To determine whether hydrogen can account for a major part of the density deficit and is therefore an important constituent in the molten iron outer core, the hydrogen concentration in molten iron was measured at 7.5 gigapascals. From these measurements, the metal-silicate melt partitioning coefficient of hydrogen was determined as a function of temperature. If the magma ocean of primordial Earth was hydrous, more than 95 mole percent of H2O in this ocean should have reacted with iron to form FeHx, and about 60 percent of the density deficit is reconciled by adding hydrogen to the core.

 

High Pressure Research Opportunities

 

In 1980, using high pressure, researchers managed for the first time to produce an compound of iron and hydrogen, iron hydride. This was a surprise, since this compound does not occur under natural conditions. In other words, it is fully possible that hydrogen exists in the iron core of the earth. ...

Quantum Mechanics Explains Solubility Of Hydrogen In Earth's Iron Core

 

Only about 1% by mass of hydrogen is required in the Earth's core to explain the density deficit, and this corresponds to a hydrogen−iron mass ratio that is only about one-tenth of that present in type I carbonaceous chondrites3. ...

Hydrogen in the Earth's core

[Boerseun]

Hey, Charlie - you don't seem to want to answer me, so I'll quickly repeat myself:

 

If, what you propose to be the case, is true, then the planet won't gravitationally cohese and would fly apart. If the centrifugal force was indeed more potent than the gravitational force, then the planet would fly apart.

 

Having a metallic hydrogen core is possible for fat planets like Jupiter, but only because of the abundance of hydrogen. But keep in mind that even on Jupiter, the metallic hydrogen actually overlies a rocky core. So even there, the rocks sank to the bottom. And this is proposed due to the density of Jupiter. If Jupiter was completely hydrogen, then it would've been less dense than it is found to be. Also, Jupiter have been (and are still - consider Shoemaker-Levy) bombarded by rocky interplanetary objects, and Jupiter's visible surface is still found to be mainly hydrogen. Where did the heavy stuff go? Keep in mind that Jupiter revolves around its axis once every ten hours, much faster than Earth. So the effect you're describing should be even more visible there than on Earth.

 

I can understand if you're not too positive about having a fruitful discussion after raising this very same question for more than 40 years, but the simple truth is that the evidence points the other way. Heavy stuff sinks to the bottom, lighter stuff rises to the top. On Jupiter, the same applies, but there is so much of the lighter stuff that the hydrogen can achieve a metallic state, and be close to the core. But the very core is still rocky in nature, not hydrogen. On Earth, there simply ain't enough hydrogen for the same to apply. Any hydrogen existing here would overly the formerly molten rock, or what we would see as the surface. Once again, the same applies to Jupiter. All the hydrogen is overlying the rocky surface of a planet not much bigger than Earth. But it's one hell of a big atmosphere.

 

I'm asking you very kindly not to dismiss my post again, because I believe I'm raising some serious issues for your premise. Also, keep in mind that if you've been trying to discuss this for the last 40 years without success, you might simply be ignoring arguments against yours. And that's not how science works. We take a look at all the evidence at hand, and if the evidence doesn't support our pet theory, well, then it turns out we were wrong and we go on to the next one.

[CharlieO]

Good work TURTLE. You did well in your review of current scientific thinking as evolving over time; from an entirely Iron Core to one now being assumed to be mostly Iron, etc., possibly alloyed with Hydrogen. At least there are questions now being raised about the possibility of Hydrogen at least being part of Earth's core. With this evolving position in scientific thinking, it may eventually be possible for more serious scientists to accept the more likely and more logical concept of there being a largely Hydrogen core; some now do.

 

Unfortunately, self-serving scientists, with their careers at state, still maintain, without question, the popular assumption that intense heat must exist within the core. Yet they don't have a shred of provable, physical evidence beyond their own assumptions of easily misunderstood factors; surface heat flow, extra-terrestrial bodies' impact energy, etc. It is this assumption of intense heat that is my next shoe, of many.

 

As for my question about heavier elements following iron into Earth's core, one well done answer offered above seems to claim they did. If so, then all the other heavier elements, as well as iron, were originally found on the surface of proto-Earth in far greater quantities than galactic proportions. In reality, deep bore hole cores haven't found iron nor heavier elements, including radioactive elements, in the deepest layers of Earth's Oceanic crust. This might indicate these elements may not exist in Earth's mantle.

 

Yet the current theory-assumption would also have us believe the inward flowing heavy elements would so cleanly separated from their parent deposits as to leave behind no trace of their progress thru the mantle. That only an enormous excess of these elements could flow inward, without any trace of their passage, yet leave behind sufficient quantities of each in the crust. This stretches the imagination. I'm still amazed that so many can accept this fairy tale.

 

In addition, the current theory-assumption has these heavier elements and iron first being found on Earth's surface and then flowing inward in response to Gravity. This leads to the conclusion there first had to be a region of lighter elements which initially made up Earth's core. The obvious lighter elements being hydrogen and helium. Ah ha!

 

The current theory-assumption explains this situation of there being admittedly an initial core of 'lighter elements' by having the assumed enormous excess of iron, and now heavier elements, displace these 'lighter' elements. Then the current theory-assumption claims the lack of Earth's sufficient gravity and our sun's solar winds washed these 'lighter elements' away from Earth and into space. All very convenient and all assumptions, as well as physically impossible. However, imaginative and very creative on the part of some self-serving scientists, but still illogical when the evidence all around us, gathered by serious scientists thru Hubble and many other surveys of outer space, begs to differ. See my prior post on how the universe behaves.

 

In response to BOERSEUM: Sorry if I neglected to include you in a personal answer, might have been because I've been so busy of late. However, having survived a medical emergency created by a just passed over snow storm, I will try to answer you directly in the future.

 

For now, please review what I have written to TURTLE as I believe this may answer some of your concerns. Also try to understand that centrifugal force, which is affecting all matter from atoms to the universe, must have played a very critical part in Earth's formation. I still find it hard to believe so many view Earth as a static model and think that centrifugal force played no part in its formation, evolution or present composition.

 

Still don't understand what expolsions have to do with disproving centrifugal force. Please advise.

 

Best Regards, CharlieO

[CraigD]

I think some confusion has ensued in this thread due to the lack of a succinct summary of CharlieO’s idea, allowing it to be considered for its scientific merit. Rather, the bulk of Carlie’s arguments have presenting a speculative account of a long history of scientific mistakes and subsequent cover-ups, in an effort to discredit the mainstream scientific consensus. As Turtle noted, this is essentially an ad-hominem argument, which is generally considered fallacious, and discouraged at hypography.

 

In order to put the thread on a track better aligned with our site rules and standards, I’ll attempt to summarize Carlie’s idea, and compare it to the mainstream consensus on the Earth’s structure and formation

• • Charlie proposes that Earth has a mostly hydrogen core.
    
  • Mainstream theory proposes that it has a mostly iron core.
    

  [*]

  • Charlie proposes that Earth formed from the condensation of a hydrogen rich cloud, and thus constitutes a large fraction of Earth’s mass.
    
  • Mainstream theory proposes that Earth formed from the gradual accretion of hydrogen and helium-poor Planetesimals, small bodies similar to present day asteroids, and thus hydrogen constitutes less than 0.2% of Earth’s mass.
    

  [*]

  • Charlie proposes that, in the early formation of the Earth, higher density elements such as iron, became concentrated near its surface, while less dense elements, such as hydrogen, became concentrated near its center.
    
  • Mainstream theory proposes that higher density elements became concentrated near the Earth’s core, lighter elements near its surface.
    

Before proceeding to elaborate on this summary, and evaluate these two conflicting ideas, I’d like confirmation that it’s an accurate statement of Charlie’s idea, and the mainstream consensus. Without going beyond a summary, please post any corrections, avoiding any ad-hominem arguments, personal anecdotes, or elaboration and explanation of a simple statement of the ideas.

[CharlieO]

Review: Excellent summary, wish I had done this long ago, but got side tracked with illogical assumptions and unrelated examples.

 

* Charlie proposes that Earth has a mostly hydrogen core.

 

There is ample physical evidence of hydrogen venting from within Earth on a daily basis in such amounts over eons of Earth's history as to only be available from a hydrogen core, which can also generate a magnetic field.

 

* Mainstream theory proposes that it has a mostly iron core.

 

There is not one piece of physical evidence for an iron core, albeit the ignorance of alternative elements with magnetic properties would have made a core of ferromagnetic materials a logical assumption at the time, but still only an assumption.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* Charlie proposes that Earth formed from the condensation of a hydrogen rich cloud.

 

Not only Earth, but all suns and planets throughout the universe, which can be observed to be forming in the same manner.

 

[and thus constitutes a large fraction of Earth’s mass.] I don't remember writing such a thing and, if so, I wish to retract any consideration of the size of hydrogen's mass at this point.

 

* Mainstream theory proposes that Earth formed from the gradual accretion of hydrogen and helium-poor Planetesimals, small bodies similar to present day asteroids, and thus hydrogen constitutes less than 0.2% of Earth’s mass.

 

This is such a contrived assumption as ignore how all other galactic masses are known to have formed and you have the problem of explaining the assumption of why these mythical Planetesimals were hydrogen and helium-poor and then explaining how they came into being. Then, one has to assume Earth was formed after the rest of our solar system was created in some special manner, unlike the formation of planets in the rest of the universe. All this would simply be more assumptions with no possible proof. Then one has the problem of explaining how a point in space, initially without any gravitational mass, can be assumed to attract all these mythical Planetesimals to it.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

* Charlie proposes that, in the early formation of the Earth, higher density elements such as iron, became concentrated near its surface, while less dense elements, such as hydrogen, became concentrated near its center.

 

Actually, I proposed that magnetic, metallic hydrogen molecules, within a spinning cloud of largely hydrogen, most of which later became our sun, were attracted to each other within eddies in the surrounding solar cloud of largely hydrogen and few other elements. Then I propose these eddies developed into a series of spinning masses which became the planets rotating around the sun. It would be only after enough hydrogen collected to become a viable mass, with sufficient gravity, that any heavier elements in the surrounding cloud could be attracted to the initial mass of hydrogen, and then only after the spin rate of the initial hydrogen mass slowed so the other elements could collect on the surface of what would become a hydrogen core.

 

* Mainstream theory proposes that higher density elements became concentrated near the Earth’s core, lighter elements near its surface.

 

Let's be fair now. Mainstream theory is more complicated. It has higher density elements, mainly iron, assumed to have initially formed on Proto-Earth's surface, then it is assumed the iron somehow flowing inward, against a centrifugal force which would have been a significant factor within an Earth spinning far more rapidly than it does today. Then Mainstream theory assumes this iron displaced the 'lighter elements' in Earth's core. This agrees with me that hydrogen was the first to form Earth's core, before the assumed iron arrived. However, I claim the enormous excess of iron assumed to now be within Earth never existed and iron could not have physically flowed inward against a more dominate centrifugal force existing at the time of Proto-Earth, thus our hydrogen core is still there and still producing evidence of its existance on a daily basis.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[Turtle]

...our hydrogen core is still there and still producing evidence of its existance on a daily basis.

 

Regards, CharlieO

 

O Charlie! Your're a good sport I must say first. Now to that hydrogen coming out of Earth (and the critters that eat it.;)). :) :)

 

... "The hydrogen that could feed bacteria in the depth of the Earth comes from a subtle chemical reaction that occurs within rocks that were once hot or even molten. In the top 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) of Earth's crust," Freund said, "the conditions are right to produce a nearly inexhaustible supply of hydrogen. In the top 5 to10 kilometers (about 3 to 6 miles) all fissures and cracks in the rocks are probably filled with water. Hydrogen molecules will seep out of the mineral grains, enter the intergranular space and saturate the water. Microorganisms that live in these water films can be expected to use this hydrogen as their vital energy source." ...

NASA - Hydrogen-fed Bacteria May Exist Beyond Earth

[CharlieO]

Good to see TURTLE still hanging in there. I sincerely appreciate the effort.

---Quote (Originally by NASA)---

... "The hydrogen that could feed bacteria in the depth of the Earth

 

Charlie here: Is there any evidence there are bacteria in the depth of the Earth? Seems like another assumption.

 

(NASA) comes from a subtle chemical reaction that occurs within rocks that were once hot or even molten.

 

Charlie here: What is the 'subtle' chemical reaction? Is there any physical evidence of rocks in the "depth of the Earth" even being once hot or even molten? Seems like more unqualified assumptions to me.

 

(NASA) In the top 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) of Earth's crust," Freund said, "the conditions are right to produce a nearly inexhaustible supply of hydrogen.

 

Charlie here: The Russians only drilled seven miles deep in Kola. Where is the evidence of any physical analysis done at 12.4 miles? If there is none, this must also be an assumption.

 

(NASA) In the top 5 to10 kilometers (about 3 to 6 miles) all fissures and cracks in the rocks are probably filled with water.

 

Charlie here: Probably filled? Fissures and cracks at that depth? Shell has drilled to five miles, the Russians to seven. No fissures or cracks of useful size were reported at depth, unless they were micro sized. At you may know, such micro sized spaces between grains do a good job of filtering out bacteria in aquifers. I recently had a well drilled to 455 feet, no fissures or cracks were found, but enough water did filter in thru micro cracks to provide sufficient, tested, bacteria free water for our household use. This "Fissures and cracks - - probably filled" remark appears to be just another assumption.

 

(NASA) Hydrogen molecules will seep out of the mineral grains, enter the intergranular space and saturate the water.

 

Charlie here: Where do these hydrogen molecules come from? Mineral grains? How long have they been seeping hydrogen? Earth is probably older than the nearly four Billion years currently indicated. Would need a lot of hydrogen in a lot of grains to feed the bacteria over that amount of time. Seems more like a good assumption in support of a hydrogen source from within Earth, albeit not from a finite number of mineral grains. Earth's core is a more likely source.

 

(NASA) enter the intergranular space and saturate the water.

 

Charlie here: Well if hydrogen seeps out of anything it would sure enter the inter-granular spaces, but "saturate" water? Isn't water already HOH? [Hydrogen+Oxygen+Hydrogen] What would a water molecule do with an extra hydrogen molecule? Hydrogen with an extra electron is deuterium, used to make "Heavy Water" for nuclear weapons. Don't know what a water molecule combined with an extra, ordinary hydrogen molecule might become. If this statement is not an assumption, it sure doesn't seem very scientific.

 

(NASA) Microorganisms that live in these water films can be expected to use this hydrogen as their vital energy source." ...

 

Charlie here: Is there any evidence of water films at 12.4 miles? Otherwise, this seems like just another assumption.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Sincerely appreciate the effort by TURTLE to find what he might first believe is a good example, but the very fact that everything in the NASA quote is either 'may' or 'probably' or 'expected' or without any supporting evidence, makes the quote more like a series of assumptions supporting assumptions. In fairness, don't you agree?

 

However, the Russian Kola very deep borehole RESULTED in finding considerable amounts of water and hydrogen gas at seven miles, so the NASA assumption may at least be based in part on that discovery. In addition, there have been many recent articles in SCIENCE regarding the considerable amount of water which may [assumption] underlie Continental crust and possibly [assumption] explain Continental Drift.

 

Some personal history, which I hope is allowed in this forum: I am personally aware of water and hydrogen gas being a problem in very deep boreholes. In fact, while working for Shell (Oil) Development in Emeryville, CA, during the 1950s, the problem we were trying to solve was the effect inside metals resulting from contact with hydrogen in deep boreholes. I'm sure you can understand what might be the problem when a drill string breaks several miles deep. "Fishing" any broken string out of a borehole is extremely costly. So it was necessary to try to protect drill strings from the effects of hydrogen infusion. We did have some success, albeit failures created by hydrogen in deep boreholes have continued to this day.

 

My realization that Earth might have a hydrogen core came when I learned hydrogen had a magnetic, metallic phase and could generate a magnetic field. It had long troubled me how hot iron could generate a magnetic field, even when spun inside more hot [non-magnetic] iron. Thus both the impossibility of any viable mass spinning inside Earth, at core pressures, and the impossibility of a magnetic field being created by hot iron, plus my experience with hydrogen, led to the revelation that Earth must have hydrogen core; which could generate a magnetic field without needing to spin inside Earth. Hydrogen from the core also has the ability to effuse thru the mantle and produce evidence of its presence within Earth's crust, which is measurable on Earth's surface. The Chinese do this on a daily basis.

 

Regards, Charlie

[Turtle]

Good to see TURTLE still hanging in there. I sincerely appreciate the effort.

 

No worries. You countered well with your own assumptions. To whit:

...My realization that Earth might have a hydrogen core came when I learned hydrogen had a magnetic, metallic phase and could generate a magnetic field. It had long troubled me how hot iron could generate a magnetic field, even when spun inside more hot [non-magnetic] iron. Thus both the impossibility of any viable mass spinning inside Earth, at core pressures, and the impossibility of a magnetic field being created by hot iron, plus my experience with hydrogen, led to the revelation that Earth must have hydrogen core; which could generate a magnetic field without needing to spin inside Earth. Hydrogen from the core also has the ability to effuse thru the mantle and produce evidence of its presence within Earth's crust, which is measurable on Earth's surface. The Chinese do this on a daily basis.

 

Regards, Charlie

 

But that assumption seems countered by new evidence by scientists of some qualification or another. At least the funding to gather it I dare say.

 

As the earth turns, the center of the earth turns even faster.

 

Confirming assertions first made in 1996, a team of geophysicists are presenting data in the journal Science today showing that the earth's inner core, a ball of solid iron larger than the moon, spins faster than the rest of the planet. Over a period of 700 to 1,200 years, the inner core appears to make one full extra spin.

 

That extra spin could give scientists information about how the earth generates its magnetic field.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/science/26core.html

 

Here's some bacteria living in rock from 4,00 feet down a blowhole...er...borehole. :hyper:

 

CORVALLIS' date=' Ore. - A team of scientists has discovered bacteria in a hole drilled more than 4,000 feet deep in volcanic rock on the island of Hawaii near Hilo, in an environment they say could be analogous to conditions on Mars and other planets.

 

Bacteria are being discovered in some of Earth's most inhospitable places, from miles below the ocean's surface to deep within Arctic glaciers. The latest discovery is one of the deepest drill holes in which scientists have discovered living organisms encased within volcanic rock, said Martin R. Fisk, a professor in the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University. ...[/quote']12-29-03 BACTERIA DISCOVERED IN 4,000 FEET OF ROCK FUELS MARS COMPARISON

 

Take 5. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em. :ud: