Belief in Earth's Iron Core still puzzling

[RevOfAllRevs]

I see fringe theories as claims rather than scientific theories.

 

That's why I called them 'ideas'.

 

; }>

[freeztar]

That's why I called them 'ideas'.

 

; }>

 

Oh...well then I guess you can explain your initial post which used the word "theory" instead of "ideas"?

 

I think that some so called fringe theories have a lot of merit. Some of what were once fringe theories are now accepted theory, like plate tectonics (which were ridiculed viciously when first mentioned).

[RevOfAllRevs]

Oh...well then I guess you can explain your initial post which used the word "theory" instead of "ideas"?

 

Number one 'fringe theories' is common and correct usage. Number two I used the words SO CALLED (caps for emphasis only) for a reason. You may of thought I meant that I was challenging that the theories were fringe, not so.

 

If you would have took the time to look, I used the word ideas rather than fringe theories after I agreed with the member (you?) who had the personal opinion that 'fringe theories' may not be the best name for the *cof* unorthodox 'ideas'. Please lets keep this civil. FYI common usage;

 

Fringe science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_theories

 

; {>

[freeztar]

Number one 'fringe theories' is common and correct usage. Number two I used the words SO CALLED (caps for emphasis only) for a reason. You may of thought I meant that I was challenging that the theories were fringe, not so.

 

If you would have took the time to look, I used the word ideas rather than fringe theories after I agreed with the member (you?) who had the personal opinion that 'fringe theories' may not be the best name for the *cof* unorthodox 'ideas'. Please lets keep this civil. FYI common usage;

 

Fringe science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_theories

 

; {>

 

Well, I'm sorry for even challenging that because it is irrelevant.

Let's get back to the topic, eh? B)

 

Belief in an iron core is not puzzling. Those that are puzzled would do well to sit down with this jigsaw thread. If the density argument is not enough to settle this issue right off the bat, then there are lots of other pieces of evidence to peruse.

 

Just to be clear, do you support a theory that does not include an iron core, Rev? If so, which theory do you support, and why?

[CharlieO]

RevOfAllRevs: Thank you for your question in regard to 'Fission' within Earth's core. It was very thought provoking and brought back many memories of another effort to explore a 'Fringe' concept. I regret the delay in responding. I was much angered by personal attacks and snide remarks, which seemed to make a mockery of Hypography's motto, “Making Science Social.”

 

This also added to the emotional stress I was suffering at home. I decided to cease risking more ridicule and being angered by some of Hypography's members, so I stopped posting; but continued to read later posts by others, including your goodself.

 

Fortunately, I have found the observations and explanations by Modest, Pyrotex and several others very enlightening and educational as well as appreciated; if not always fully understood. I have even printed out most of their detailed efforts to explain mainstream science to this old dog, for use as personal references, albeit I may have problems with the new tricks syndrome.

 

Therefore, I will take this time to apologize for stooping to the level of making personal attacks and snide remarks myself and pray others will do the same.

 

Meanwhile, in answer to your question about 'Fission,' I assume you are referring to the physical Heat Flow measured as being physical evidence of temperatures rising from within Earth's crust; generated by an intensely heated interior. This assumption appears to be widely accepted and, if I am to understand what I have read, to be sustained by radioactive decay within Earth's mantle, if not its core.

 

So I will now continue onto another 'fringe' track and risk more ridicule.

 

Heat Flow within Earth's surface layers is something I have wondered about for decades, even studied in a college setting for a time and of which I have limited personal experience. I noted early on that Heat Flow measurements appear to have such a wide variation in readings that using the 'worldwide average' of 87 mW/m^2 to interpolate Heat Flow temperatures from within as 'proving' Earth has an intensely heated interior appeared to me more like an effort to 'verify' a preconceived assumption.

 

For instance: Heat Flow in central Florida, during the comfortable winter months most often spent there by academics and where one should think Earth's surface is closest to Earth's interior, measures between 1 and 20 mW/m^2. However, Heat Flow in the high mountains of Colorado, again during the comfortable summer months, was often found to range closer to 200 mW/m^2. This pales in comparison with Heat Flow in portions of Yellowstone NP, also during the comfortable summer months, which are often well beyond 200 mW/m^2; most likely the result of volcanic activity.

 

My references are from the current global heat flow data (24,774 observations at 20,201 sites) as maintained by the International Heat Flow Commission (IHFC) of the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior (IASPEI). However, my interest in Heat Flow began in 1968, shortly after IHFC first published Heat Flow observations in 1965.

 

I noted what appeared to be a direct correlation with solar radiation intensity, which is greater during the summer months in the high mountains of Colorado than in the winter months on the central plains of Florida. This variation appeared to be well beyond that which can be solely related to radioactive decay and Earth's intensely heated interior. However, there were also other variations which appeared to be useful for the identification of isolated 'hot spots' wherein volcanic or exothermic activity [hydrogen effusion] might be present.

 

So - - - nearly 40 years ago, I applied for a modest grant to enable me to study Earth's Heat Flow in the Arctic, beyond the Arctic Circle. Eventually, I even traveled there, albeit didn't make it to Prudhoe Bay due to tire problems. [Roughest road I've ever traveled, barely made it back to Fairbanks.] I had intended to establish a base-line for Heat Flow measurements during the summer months, when solar radiation over a nearly 24 hour period would have been greater than the readings taken in the high Colorado mountains during the same period.

 

FYI: When driving on rocks, LOWER your tire's air pressure. This will allow the tire to flex more and absorb the sharp rocks' ability to puncture tires. I had seven 10 ply, steel belted, HD truck tires on my motorhome and thought HIGH pressure would prevent blow-outs. Wrong, the rocks soon ate up three tires, leaving me short of Prudhoe Bay. There was a service station about half-way back, which charged me a ton and effectively eliminated my project efforts for that year.

 

The intent of my grant request was to fund the measurements of Heat Flows during July-August, when total solar radiation was greater, after solar radiation saturation starting with 24 hours of sunlight in June, THEN measure Heat Flow during January-February, during the period when there was a near total absence of solar radiation. When my intent was identified as trying to prove solar radiation was a primary factor in Heat Flow and not internal heating from below Earth's crust, the grant request was denied.

 

Seems like I was already known for disputing the accepted 'mainstream' theory of Earth being formed with an iron core during Geology 101 at the University of Oklahoma and was told in no uncertain terms that Lord Kelvin's assumption of the Earth being intensely heated from the time of its formation and still radiating this heat was not to be questioned. This assumption was supported by the discovery of radioactive decay heating which was then assumed to sustain Heat Flow from an intensely heated interior over a longer period.

 

These rejections continued when I applied for another grant to fund research efforts which might dispute another accepted assumption. Apparently, dogma believing academics will only sponsor studies which support their personal assumptions or those of recognized authorities.

 

I can report that deep, WORKING mines, especially below 2000 feet are much hotter than upper levels, with airconditioning much in demand by the workers. [been there.] However, as Robert Boyle observed in the 1600's, this might be due more to the heat energy input generated by the workers and their equipment.

 

Conversely, the same deep, now ABANDONED mines, which have been closed for many years, all become very cold with increasing depth. [been there.] I can also report that every NATURAL cavern and cave, with some caverns in France over 3,000 feet deep, ALL grow colder with depth. [been there too.] Even active lava lakes grow cooler with depth and no sign of a vent or 'throat' for the emergence of lava/magma has ever been found, only broken rocks not far below the liquid layers. T.A. Jagger, MY LIFE WITH VOLCANOS.

 

I suspect lava/magma is just crustal rocks which were melted by hydrogen-oxygen exothermic based reactions, which also power volcanos and other largely hydrogen compound vents. Another story for which I have endured my share of ridicule and don't care to discuss at this time.

 

To summarize, finally, observed physical activities are not fully supportive of Heat Flow originating from within Earth's interior. The possibility exists, at least for me, that radioactive decay and solar radiation are affecting ONLY a thin layer of Earth's crust; which might be just a good insulator for a very cold interior, as others have claimed.

 

In any event, I appreciate your question and apologize for rambling. I'm sure if I could find the time, I could provide a better qualified answer with more references.

[Turtle]

I regret the delay in responding. I was much angered by personal attacks and snide remarks, which seemed to make a mockery of Hypography's motto, “Making Science Social.”

 

This also added to the emotional stress I was suffering at home. I decided to cease risking more ridicule and being angered by some of Hypography's members, so I stopped posting; but continued to read later posts by others, including your goodself. ...

 

stop whining & stop with the heart-tugging emotional appeals. it doesn't have any bearing on science and you ain't the only one with troubles. you are only interested in the topic in so much as you want to prove your interpretation of Bible stories. while some say it doesn't matter what your motivation is, i say otherwise. i will confront you with it at every opportunity. had you not mouthed off as in your quote above, i wouldn't have bothered to post. B)

 

us students falling behind in science and here we put this crap up and carry on 'round & 'round as if it had merit. it is a lousy example of science for students.

 

Seems like I was already known for disputing the accepted 'mainstream' theory of Earth being formed with an iron core during Geology 101 at the University of Oklahomafor rambling.

...

I'm sure if I could find the time, I could provide a better qualified answer with more references.

 

yet more poor-me asides that have nothing to do with science. been told your wrong how many years? get a clue.

[Moontanman]

RevOfAllRevs: Thank you for your question in regard to 'Fission' within Earth's core. It was very thought provoking and brought back many memories of another effort to explore a 'Fringe' concept. I regret the delay in responding. I was much angered by personal attacks and snide remarks, which seemed to make a mockery of Hypography's motto, “Making Science Social.”

 

This also added to the emotional stress I was suffering at home. I decided to cease risking more ridicule and being angered by some of Hypography's members, so I stopped posting; but continued to read later posts by others, including your goodself.

 

Fortunately, I have found the observations and explanations by Modest, Pyrotex and several others very enlightening and educational as well as appreciated; if not always fully understood. I have even printed out most of their detailed efforts to explain mainstream science to this old dog, for use as personal references, albeit I may have problems with the new tricks syndrome.

 

Therefore, I will take this time to apologize for stooping to the level of making personal attacks and snide remarks myself and pray others will do the same.

 

Meanwhile, in answer to your question about 'Fission,' I assume you are referring to the physical Heat Flow measured as being physical evidence of temperatures rising from within Earth's crust; generated by an intensely heated interior. This assumption appears to be widely accepted and, if I am to understand what I have read, to be sustained by radioactive decay within Earth's mantle, if not its core.

 

So I will now continue onto another 'fringe' track and risk more ridicule.

 

Heat Flow within Earth's surface layers is something I have wondered about for decades, even studied in a college setting for a time and of which I have limited personal experience. I noted early on that Heat Flow measurements appear to have such a wide variation in readings that using the 'worldwide average' of 87 mW/m^2 to interpolate Heat Flow temperatures from within as 'proving' Earth has an intensely heated interior appeared to me more like an effort to 'verify' a preconceived assumption.

 

For instance: Heat Flow in central Florida, during the comfortable winter months most often spent there by academics and where one should think Earth's surface is closest to Earth's interior, measures between 1 and 20 mW/m^2. However, Heat Flow in the high mountains of Colorado, again during the comfortable summer months, was often found to range closer to 200 mW/m^2. This pales in comparison with Heat Flow in portions of Yellowstone NP, also during the comfortable summer months, which are often well beyond 200 mW/m^2; most likely the result of volcanic activity.

 

My references are from the current global heat flow data (24,774 observations at 20,201 sites) as maintained by the International Heat Flow Commission (IHFC) of the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior (IASPEI). However, my interest in Heat Flow began in 1968, shortly after IHFC first published Heat Flow observations in 1965.

 

I noted what appeared to be a direct correlation with solar radiation intensity, which is greater during the summer months in the high mountains of Colorado than in the winter months on the central plains of Florida. This variation appeared to be well beyond that which can be solely related to radioactive decay and Earth's intensely heated interior. However, there were also other variations which appeared to be useful for the identification of isolated 'hot spots' wherein volcanic or exothermic activity [hydrogen effusion] might be present.

 

So - - - nearly 40 years ago, I applied for a modest grant to enable me to study Earth's Heat Flow in the Arctic, beyond the Arctic Circle. Eventually, I even traveled there, albeit didn't make it to Prudhoe Bay due to tire problems. [Roughest road I've ever traveled, barely made it back to Fairbanks.] I had intended to establish a base-line for Heat Flow measurements during the summer months, when solar radiation over a nearly 24 hour period would have been greater than the readings taken in the high Colorado mountains during the same period.

 

FYI: When driving on rocks, LOWER your tire's air pressure. This will allow the tire to flex more and absorb the sharp rocks' ability to puncture tires. I had seven 10 ply, steel belted, HD truck tires on my motorhome and thought HIGH pressure would prevent blow-outs. Wrong, the rocks soon ate up three tires, leaving me short of Prudhoe Bay. There was a service station about half-way back, which charged me a ton and effectively eliminated my project efforts for that year.

 

The intent of my grant request was to fund the measurements of Heat Flows during July-August, when total solar radiation was greater, after solar radiation saturation starting with 24 hours of sunlight in June, THEN measure Heat Flow during January-February, during the period when there was a near total absence of solar radiation. When my intent was identified as trying to prove solar radiation was a primary factor in Heat Flow and not internal heating from below Earth's crust, the grant request was denied.

 

Seems like I was already known for disputing the accepted 'mainstream' theory of Earth being formed with an iron core during Geology 101 at the University of Oklahoma and was told in no uncertain terms that Lord Kelvin's assumption of the Earth being intensely heated from the time of its formation and still radiating this heat was not to be questioned. This assumption was supported by the discovery of radioactive decay heating which was then assumed to sustain Heat Flow from an intensely heated interior over a longer period.

 

These rejections continued when I applied for another grant to fund research efforts which might dispute another accepted assumption. Apparently, dogma believing academics will only sponsor studies which support their personal assumptions or those of recognized authorities.

 

I can report that deep, WORKING mines, especially below 2000 feet are much hotter than upper levels, with airconditioning much in demand by the workers. [been there.] However, as Robert Boyle observed in the 1600's, this might be due more to the heat energy input generated by the workers and their equipment.

 

Conversely, the same deep, now ABANDONED mines, which have been closed for many years, all become very cold with increasing depth. [been there.] I can also report that every NATURAL cavern and cave, with some caverns in France over 3,000 feet deep, ALL grow colder with depth. [been there too.] Even active lava lakes grow cooler with depth and no sign of a vent or 'throat' for the emergence of lava/magma has ever been found, only broken rocks not far below the liquid layers. T.A. Jagger, MY LIFE WITH VOLCANOS.

 

I suspect lava/magma is just crustal rocks which were melted by hydrogen-oxygen exothermic based reactions, which also power volcanos and other largely hydrogen compound vents. Another story for which I have endured my share of ridicule and don't care to discuss at this time.

 

To summarize, finally, observed physical activities are not fully supportive of Heat Flow originating from within Earth's interior. The possibility exists, at least for me, that radioactive decay and solar radiation are affecting ONLY a thin layer of Earth's crust; which might be just a good insulator for a very cold interior, as others have claimed.

 

In any event, I appreciate your question and apologize for rambling. I'm sure if I could find the time, I could provide a better qualified answer with more references.

 

I call total Bull **** on all of this, the deeper you go in the earths crust the hotter it gets. Heat in deep mines is one of the main problems encountered..

 

Depth of the Deepest Mine

 

Many problems arise when digging so deep into the Earth. The most obvious is the heat. For example, at 5 km the temperature reaches 70 degrees Celsius and therefore massive cooling equipment is needed to allow workers to survive at such depths.

 

Google is full of references to high temps in deep mines.....

[RevOfAllRevs]

RevOfAllRevs: Thank you for your question in regard to 'Fission' within Earth's core. It was very thought provoking and brought back many memories of another effort to explore a 'Fringe' concept. I regret the delay in responding. I was much angered by personal attacks and snide remarks, which seemed to make a mockery of Hypography's motto, “Making Science Social.”

 

>>>>Breivty Snip<<<<<The possibility exists, at least for me, that radioactive decay and solar radiation are affecting ONLY a thin layer of Earth's crust; which might be just a good insulator for a very cold interior, as others have claimed.

 

In any event, I appreciate your question and apologize for rambling. I'm sure if I could find the time, I could provide a better qualified answer with more references.

 

Thank you for your kind response and taking the time to do the excellent write. I may start a thread about the ridicule thing if I can find a forum 'room' that supports the topic. I will say that I agree fully with you concerning the hostility, and my condolences to you for being exposed to the heat of disdain in the past.

 

That said your work in the field is remarkable and interesting. I have to admit that I lean towards radioactive elements contributing to the heat. If the radioactive events are restricted to the core I haven't a clue. I came to this thread asking questions and not as a teacher, that should be evident by my questions. Oh, I like your rambling, its enlightening and exciting to hear of your ideas.

 

; {>

[RevOfAllRevs]

Well, I'm sorry for even challenging that because it is irrelevant.

Let's get back to the topic, eh? :smilingsun:

 

Belief in an iron core is not puzzling. Those that are puzzled would do well to sit down with this jigsaw thread. If the density argument is not enough to settle this issue right off the bat, then there are lots of other pieces of evidence to peruse.

 

Just to be clear, do you support a theory that does not include an iron core, Rev? If so, which theory do you support, and why?

 

I tend to agree that the core is metal with a liquid outer core and a solid inner core. I would also agree that core is composed of around eighty percent iron with some nickel maybe some light elements. However where I split with traditional theory is the percentage of radioactive material in the core, I think it may be much higher than trace amounts, however, at this time this is just a hunch. When I have time I may research it in detail. As I said most of my time is devoted to astronomy, not geology. Thanks for your reply.

 

; }>

[stereologist]

Mines are trouble by the intense heat of deep mining. It makes it difficult for people to work for any length of time at great depths. Not only are mines, places a person can enter, hot, but drilling deep for petroleum and gas deposits also encounters increasing temperatures.

 

Your Robert Boyle claim also does not apply to mines below 2000 feet since no one was able to mine to that depth in his time.

 

his variation appeared to be well beyond that which can be solely related to radioactive decay and Earth's intensely heated interior.

Let's see. Florida is a sedimentary zone and Colorado is mainly igneous and metamorphics. So the greatly different underlying materials might be responsible for the large variation observed.

 

When my intent was identified as trying to prove solar radiation was a primary factor in Heat Flow and not internal heating from below Earth's crust, the grant request was denied.

 

No surprise there.

[CharlieO]

RevOfAllRevs: Thank you for your response. The variation in responses in this Science Forum is amazing. Turtle may be just very insecure and has my sympathy for his perverted, paranoid preoccupation with Creationists and the Bible. Have to admit, I'm not one and don't have much knowledge of the latter, but he still rants like I'm the Devil incarnate for daring to suggest alternatives to mainstream science assumptions. At least others have been generous in their advice and observations and I have learned a great deal from them, for which I am very appreciative. It is my comprehension of their explanations which may be the problem.

 

Moontanman's statement is simply bogus and I expected better of him. He may just not have the needed comprehension to understand straightforward wording.

 

I wrote: “I can report that deep, WORKING mines, especially below 2000 feet are much hotter than upper levels, with air conditioning much in demand by the workers.”

 

He then repeats the same thought and then says my nearly identical observation is Bull **** and reports there are many Google references to mines growing more heated with depth. No argument, but he just doesn't make much sense to agree and then denounce. Doubt if he will be man enough to apologize, however.

 

Please consider the fact that I was once the owner-operator of a mine, until the Federal meddling made it unprofitable to continue: MSHA, BLM, OSHA, EPA, etc. Meeting all the different regulations eventually made mining too expensive. At one point I was featured in a nationally known publication for my mining activities, also a member of the Western Small Miners Association and Mineral Mining Society. I served on the Open Space Board of a county known for mining; albeit now better known for tourism. Been in open pit mines a mile deep, deep lead mines, deeper gold and silver mines. I probably have far more experience with hard rock mining and subsurface geology than the detractors who write as if they know so much.

 

So when I write deep WORKING mines get hotter with depth, I'm writing from first hand experience. When I write some once intensely heated working mines, now long ABANDONED, get colder with depth, I'm also writing from first hand experience. The difference is clearly the absence of workers, their operating equipment and lighting. Ever try to change a light bulb that just burnt out?

 

When I write that Heat Flow appears more affected by solar radiation intensity, I'm also writing from first hand experience; often supervised by a college professor. For example, I found Heat Flow measurements in soils directly exposed to the sun are about twice that as in soils located very close, but in a ditch constantly shaded. Initial conclusion was that there is some Heat Flow from within Earth, but solar radiation may be a primary factor.

 

This is why I was so intent on taking measurements above the Arctic Circle during January; with near 24 hour darkness. Then comparing them to measurements taken in the same location during July; with near 24 hour solar radiation. I still think this is a good grant proposal for a geology student who doesn't question assumptions, probably worth a Master's thesis, if not a PhD; especially if the difference proves solar radiation is the PRIMARY creator of Earth's Heat Flow and radioactive decay is only a trivial factor. Boy, would that set off the Hot Iron Core belivers and send them back to making another assumption to support the concept of Earth having a heated interior.

 

Stereologist will keep you on your toes. He apparently likes to nit-pick at details and confuse issues, such as: “Your Robert Boyle claim also does not apply to mines below 2000 feet since no one was able to mine to that depth in his time.”

 

I wrote: “I can report that deep, WORKING mines, especially below 2000 feet are much hotter than upper levels, with air conditioning much in demand by the workers. However, as Robert Boyle observed in the 1600's, this might be due more to the heat energy input generated by the workers.”

 

The first part is true, even Moontanman agrees, albeit he calls it Bull **** because he didn't comprehend. The quote from Robert Boyle's journal is paraphrased, as well as accurate. It is from his 1650s report to the [English] Chancellor of the Exchequer on increased wages demanded by Tin miners in Cornwall for working in deeper areas where the lack of adequate air conditioning made conditions miserable. I don't know how deep the specific mine was about which he was investigating, only his opinion as to the source of the increased heating in “deeper” mines; which is the point Stereologist apparently tried to confuse or didn't understand.

 

Now I don't know for sure if solar radiation IS the primary source of Heat Flow within Earth's crustal layers. However, several researchers have estimated Earth is warmed by heat radiated by the Sun to the extent that Earth receives about 400 Wm-2 from the Sun, or almost 10,000 times the amount of energy released from its interior by radioactive decay.

 

Also, I'm not the first to question the absence of heating from beneath Earth's crust. Lord Rayleigh, 1904 Nobel Prize Laureate and President of the Royal Society, was among the first to observe that crustal igneous rocks have more than sufficient radioactivity to answer the flow of heat from the Earth. I take this to mean that Lord Rayleigh is saying there may NOT be any heating from below Earth's crust and therefore Earth's mantle and/or core may be very cold. Many similar observations by historic and well qualified individuals are included in EARTH HAS A COLD HEART, 1989, by Neil Christianson; who began his quest in 1972.

 

I have suspected, since 1968, that Earth was formed in the cold of space, was not heated during its formation or by later imaginative impact scenarios and remains cold inside. I have also actively investigated Heat Flow activity and found it to be largely dependent on solar radiation. Something I doubt if any others in the Science Forum have done or fully understand. Even so, I still don't know for sure if Earth's core is iron or hydrogen or a combination of these or some other elements, and I'm confident no one else does either.

[Boerseun]

CharlieO:

 

Please refrain from personal attacks. If you have nothing to say to Turtle's objections, if you can't defend your point of view, then ante up and come with the goods.

 

As to your "Earth formed in the cold of space", it will profit you to consider the immense amounts of kinetic energy converted to thermal energy upon collisions between objects floating in the "cold of space". You can also consider what happens when you pump a bicycle pump and feel the heat generated by the compressed air. You can certainly understand why the inside of this planet will be hell incarnate, what with the immense pressure built up there with the escape path to the thermal energy efficiently blocked off by the solid surface layer.

 

As to the presence of radioactive metals at or near the core, yes - that certainly is a possibility. But it simply cannot account for the amount of heat needed to give us a molten mantle, because judged by the spectroscopic (as well as first-hand lab analysis) composition of protoplanetary material, there simply isn't enough of the stuff as a percentage to support that particular theory.

 

The Earth isn't Cold or Hot because any particular theory says so. The Earth is Hot or Cold because that's where the mass of the evidence points. And with our current data set, the evidence points to a hot interior, a molten mantle with a solid core, consisting mostly out of iron and nickle. A cold inner Earth is a theory based on absolutely nothing, or "wishful thinking", if you will. A cold inner Earth theory ignores such basic scientific principles as energy conversion (kinetic to thermal in planet-building collisions), the transmission of thermal energy (from the hot interior to space - effectively blocked by the solidified crust), it doesn't cater for volcanism, it doesn't cater for plate tectonics, it doesn't cater for deep-sea thermal vents, it doesn't explain the Earth's magnetic field, nor does it explain why there is measurable magnetic drift. It doesn't explain the Earth's measured density, it doesn't explain anything, really. It makes one wonder why at all anybody would take any "Cold Earth Theory" seriously, unless used as a tool to prod and provoke. Used as a tool to attempt to embarrass science, to show those "evil arrogant know-it-all scientists" a thing or two. And then to resort to insults and name-calling when the egg lands squarely on their face.

 

Come on, CharlieO. There is absolutely no evidence pointing towards a cold interior for this particular planet. Quite the reverse, actually. And if you want to participate further in the hallowed halls of this here site, then you should respect the other members here well enough to not call them insecure paranoid perverts, because they don't agree with you, and might challenge your world-view.

 

Right. 'Nuff said.

[RevOfAllRevs]

Reverend:

 

Please refrain from personal attacks. If you have nothing to say to Turtle's objections, if you can't defend your point of view, then ante up and come with the goods.

 

What personal attacks are you talking about? And are you following me (stalking) around it sure seems like it

 

As to your "Earth formed in the cold of space", it will profit you to consider the immense amounts of kinetic energy converted to thermal energy upon collisions between objects floating in the "cold of space".

 

Still the cold of space surrounded it sheesh! Anyone with a ounce of sense knows that there are tidal forces and other forces at work. Please don’t put words in my mouth!

 

You can also consider what happens when you pump a bicycle pump and feel the heat generated by the compressed air. You can certainly understand why the inside of this planet will be hell incarnate, what with the immense pressure built up there with the escape path to the thermal energy efficiently blocked off by the solid surface layer.

 

Again I know that.

 

As presence of radioactive metals at or near the core, yes - that certainly is a possibility. But it simply cannot account for the amount of heat needed to give us a molten mantle, because judged by the spectroscopic (as well as first-hand lab analysis) composition of protoplanetary material, there simply isn't enough of the stuff as a percentage to support that particular theory.

 

I did not say that the radioactive elements was the only reason for the molten mantel etc and don’t know where you came up with that. Please don’t put words or suggest that I am saying something when I didn’t.

 

 

Earth isn't Cold or Hot because any particular theory says so.

 

That’s a given.

 

The Earth is Hot or Cold because that's where the mass of the evidence points. And with our current data set, the evidence points to a hot interior, a molten mantle with a solid core, consisting mostly out of iron and nickle.

 

Do you mean nickel? Anyway, that’s what I said.

 

 

A cold inner Earth is a theory based on absolutely nothing, or "wishful thinking", if you will.

 

I didn’t say that the earth had a cold inner core why are you attempting to say I did?

 

 

A cold inner Earth theory ignores such basic scientific principles as energy conversion (kinetic to thermal in planet-building collisions), the transmission of thermal energy (from the hot interior to space - effectively blocked by the solidified crust), it doesn't cater for volcanism, it doesn't cater for plate tectonics, it doesn't cater for deep-sea thermal vents, it doesn't explain the Earth's magnetic field, nor does it explain why there is measurable magnetic drift. It doesn't explain the Earth's measured density, it doesn't explain anything, really. It makes one wonder why at all anybody would take any "Cold Earth Theory" seriously, unless used as a tool to prod and provoke.

 

Again I think you must have confused me with someone else, again please don’t suggest that I said these things, I said I believe the core is hot and solid with a molten outer core several times. ie; Seismologists measure heat flow from Earth's molten core to lower ...

The outer core is molten liquid and surrounds a solid inner core about the size ... "The core must have been pretty hot in the past for this much heat to be ...

http://www.scienceblog.com/.../seismologists-measure-heat-flow-from-earths-molten-core-to-lower-mantle-12084.html

 

 

Used as a tool to attempt to embarrass science, to show those "evil arrogant know-it-all scientists" a thing or two. And then to resort to insults and name-calling when the egg lands squarely on their face.

 

If the shoe fits. But again I said nothing of the sorts. The hostility and insults are evident here of course, you decide where this hostility lies.

 

 

come on, Reverend. There is absolutely no evidence pointing towards a cold interior for this particular planet.

 

Damn! Please show where I said the earths core is cold rather than molten.

 

 

Quite the reverse, actually. And if you want to participate further in the hallowed halls of this here site, then you should respect the other members here well enough to not call them insecure paranoid perverts, because they don't agree with you, and might challenge your world-view.

 

What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? I never called anyone insecure paranoid perverts,! I am going to report this to the administrator you have slandered me and just made up lies. Its appalling.

 

Right. 'Nuff said.

 

Indeed!

 

; {>

[modest]

Rev,

 

Boerseun clearly meant to address the post to Charlie and mistakenly addressed it to you. I would think that should be rather obvious. There's no need to compound a simple mistake with an aggressive response.

 

~modest

[Boerseun]

Sorry, Rev - that entire post was aimed at CharlieO.

 

I do apologize - that was an error on my side. I had a side-tab open with a different reply to one of your posts, and somehow my eye caught it. The entire eye-brain-hand system got screwed up there.

 

I will edit as such.

[RevOfAllRevs]

No worries, with the other actions I thought you were stalking me for sure. Will you contact the administrator and tell him or her what happened ? I will back you up.

 

; {>

[RevOfAllRevs]

Rev,

 

Boerseun clearly meant to address the post to Charlie and mistakenly addressed it to you. I would think that should be rather obvious. There's no need to compound a simple mistake with an aggressive response.

 

~modest

 

Your not wearing my shoes and don't know whats going on behind the scenes.

 

; {>