A Possible Reason For Layers On The Crust Of The Earth

[belovelife]

 

now imagine this is the core of the planet

 

which is "popcorning" into the magma that the continents float on

so like glass spinning and spiraling the colors that are in it

 

the magma is slightly mixed, but with definate layers, and veins of all sorts of elements within this structure

 

so if the outer shell of the planet originally cooled , we would have layers that cooled around the globe

 

this lava was not homogenous, but mixed with different elements

 

but the original decay of the core, and a planets spin, may have made a pattern similar to this,

 

based on similarities of the core to the sun

 

and a coronal mass ejection from the core, similar to a coronal mass ejection from the sun

 

we would get veins of elements within the magma the eventually cooled and formed the crust of the earth

 

then as the core decayed further, tectonic movement and the concept of how fluids react in space take effect

 

with pressure from the inside causing cracks in the crust

Edited August 31, 2012 by belovelife

[belovelife]

also any gasses that were dissolved in the magma could potentially be set free in a erruption, which would create possible

 

vent paths, like on mars, that are warm

[Buffy]

Not only does this violate just about every law of physics, but there's oodles of counter-evidence against anti-gravitational, offset, transverse-oriented spiral convection anywhere in the interior of the Earth, the Sun or any other planetary body.

 

Your diagram of course is 2D. Try to apply a little calculus and extrapolate this into a spherical 3D model. You may run into, um, anomalies....

 

It is a pretty picture though. :cheer:

 

What's yer point?

 

We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming, :phones:

Buffy

[belovelife]

i was pondering a highly dense core, where the central gravitational pull may be around 1/3 of the way from the center of the planet,

where the core itself ( of course is a chunk of impetali itself ) but where, in the magma, the gravitational middle point is about a third of the way to the crust from the center

 

then

 

as the core decays, there would be things similar to erruptions, but in this layer of the planet

 

as these erruptions occur, the lighter elements make it to the higher magma chamber, which in turn, work their way to the surface

 

i can visualise this, i am doing my best to explain in scientific language the concept

 

mabe i should have written it in a poem

[Buffy]

i was pondering a highly dense core, where the central gravitational pull may be around 1/3 of the way from the center of the planet,

where the core itself ( of course is a chunk of impetali itself ) but where, in the magma, the gravitational middle point is about a third of the way to the crust from the center

 

Why would the "central gravitational pull" *not* be at the center of the mass?

 

Why would there be *five* of them?

 

Why would there be any likelihood that the five centers of mass represent exactly equivalent densities?

 

What would be the reason that they persist, given that all laws of gravity would cause them to merge?

 

mabe i should have written it in a poem

That's certainly a good idea on it's own merits! :cheer:

 

Competence, like truth, beauty and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder, :phones:

Buffy

[belovelife]

then again, the continental crust could also be a layer like this

 

so the really light elements make up the atmoshpere

[belovelife]

Why would the "central gravitational pull" *not* be at the center of the mass?

 

because all the mass of the planet ( continental plates/crust) would gravitationally pull it towards the surface

 

 

Why would there be *five* of them?

 

 

five, well this was just for visualization, there may be more or less, how big is the varyance of "arms" in a galaxy, or sunspots on a star

 

Why would there be any likelihood that the five centers of mass represent exactly equivalent densities?

i may have misunderstood this

 

What would be the reason that they persist, given that all laws of gravity would cause them to merge?

 

i think the idea of impetali would have to marry core dynamics to understand fully

 

That's certainly a good idea on it's own merits! :cheer:

 

Competence, like truth, beauty and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder, :phones:

Buffy

 

thank you :)

[Buffy]

because all the mass of the planet ( continental plates/crust) would gravitationally pull it towards the surface

 

The problem is that you're ignoring that the pull of the "side" that you're claiming would pull the mass outward from the center is more that overwhelmed by the mass on the opposite side of the center from it. "Center of Mass" is a pretty well defined concept, and the only things that cause it to be somewhere other than the center of a spherical object are large imbalances in density (which tend to be pulled, yes, toward the center of the mass, because that is the equilibrium point, or a non-spherical shape, which obviously none of the example objects are.

 

five, well this was just for visualization, there may be more or less, how big is the varyance of "arms" in a galaxy, or sunspots on a star

 

Arms in a galaxy are "density waves" and are not actually permanent formations of stars which individually pass *through* the arms. Nonetheless they still form around the center of the galaxy--not 1/3 of the way away from the center--because that's where the center of mass is.

 

Sunspots are round and show no evidence of spiral structure. They are the "volcanos" of the sun, not the "hurricanes". Moreover, their circular structure is tangent to the surface, not perpendicular to it as your diagram shows.

 

i think the idea of impetali would have to marry core dynamics to understand fully

 

Is there some specific theory you are referring to by "core dynamics?" The dynamics of planetary and stellar masses is an interesting subject, but the kind of extreme differences in density required to cause any effect like persistent spiral motion perpendicular to the surface of a sphere would be pretty easy to detect.

 

There are certainly examples of your picture (like moons around planets) but that only works because of the the fact that they're in *space* not *inside* the sun! You'll also notice that there normally is only one major body at each distance from the solar system's center of mass, and the one area where there is more homogeneous density (as you would have inside the Earth or sun) like the asteroid belt, you definitely will see only very small and inconsequential cases of asteroids orbiting one another, and certainly no well defined spirals.

 

Art can be very useful in science, but the art has to actually have some explanatory value that matches up with actual data, or it's really all just art for arts sake, and trying to call it science is an exercise in futility.

 

Abstract art is a product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered, :phones:

Buffy

[belovelife]

well as far as gravity goes, its dependant on the density of the object, be it atoms, or molecular structures,

 

also at such high temperatures such as magma, the liquid state of the matter involved also would poentially cause other element s to

 

dissolve, up to a saturation point,

but say the continental plate of eurasia is huge, making it a massive object gravitationally propotianate to austrailia,

 

then consider the gravitational interactions of the oceanic plates

 

it could potentially be less than even the australian plate

so the core gravitational dynamics would not be a uniform idea anyway

 

 

now if the core is gravitqtionally massivly supirior to the plates,

 

then all the heaviest matter would sink to the center, and the atomic decay would bubble outwards

 

i guess it all depends

 

does the calculated gravitational effects of the matter that is formed from atomic decay

 

a- less than the original matter

b- equal to the original matter

c- more than the original matter

 

this may also be dependant on the type of matter decaying,

 

logic would say that you would have less

 

considering the loss of enegy in heat

 

and the loss of atomic weight when duterium turn back into hydrogen

 

but if that is the case,

 

where is the earths gravity going, will it reduce to a point until it stops,

 

or the accumulated matter from stardust and other objects entering our gravitational zone

counterbalance the loss in atomic decay

 

but back to the layers concept

 

if there are elements that are only stable at such conditions such as the core of a planet, then

 

they themselves would have layers also

 

along with unique potential gasses ( atoms with a full electron shell )

 

that are dissolved in the layers ( could be: core, solid, liquid, solid, liquid, gas)

 

------------------------------------------------

 

the original point was trying to explain the layers in planetary formation

 

like the layers that we see on mars

 

from curiosity

 

what i'm saying is i don't think this is sedimentary layers,

 

or not only sedimentary layers

 

take into consideration

 

if a quasar decays and has CME's that are solar syatems

 

then the biggest "spark" would be a star, but the other mini sparcs would be planets, and as the spin around the quasar begin the rotation of a solar system

 

then the sparcs that are planetary would be , in relative nature, spiining and having CME's of themselves,

 

so as the surface of the planet cools, and forms plates, the lighter matter bubbling outward towards the surface, would have specific compositions, based on the type,

 

or size of the CME zone of the core

 

therefore giving specific layers as the core spins indepentantly to the spin of the surface

[Buffy]

well as far as gravity goes, its dependant on the density of the object,

 

Yep!

 

also at such high temperatures such as magma, the liquid state of the matter involved also would poentially cause other element s to dissolve, up to a saturation point,

 

Well, temperature can affect density, but mostly density variations are completely overwhelmed by the mass determined by the "atomic and molecular" weight of the content of the various layers of the earth.

 

If you did not research the points I alluded to above, basically mass is pulled toward the center, and as you might imagine, the density of the various layers of the earth is proportional to their distance from the center:

 

Continental Crust: 2.7 to 3.0

Oceanic Crust: 3.0 to 3.3

Mantle (silicates): 3.3 to 5.7 (increasing with depth?)

Outer Core (liquid): 9.9 to 12.2

Inner Core (solid): 12.6 to 13.0

 

This also has implications for your attempt to find something significant in the mass of the continents:

 

but say the continental plate of eurasia is huge, making it a massive object gravitationally propotianate to austrailia, then consider the gravitational interactions of the oceanic plates it could potentially be less than even the australian plate so the core gravitational dynamics would not be a uniform idea anyway

 

...so looking at these numbers you can see that while the oceanic plates are thinner, they're also more dense than the continents, and quite frankly while much less dense, the mass of the ocean on top of them is not inconsiderable....except that they're a lot less dense then the mantle, let alone the core.

 

The plates are so light that they bob about on top of the mantle like little toy boats. The mantle barely notices them.

 

We know quite a bit about the density and content of the earth, because we can measure it in many ways, among them using earthquakes seismic waves bouncing off the various layers and seeing where and when they propagate.

 

Here's a useful link that goes into what we know about the Earth's layers that you may find edifying.

 

now if the core is gravitqtionally massivly supirior to the plates, then all the heaviest matter would sink to the center,

 

Ah, yep.

 

...and the atomic decay would bubble outwards...

 

which in fact it does, but not very far, and it's effect on the center-directed gravitational pull is so inconsequential as to be barely measurable. It is what keeps us with a very active interior structure to our earth and volcanos can be very pretty (as long as you're far enough away from them!).

 

----------

 

Pondering the impact of the easily disprovable and the impossible is certainly an interesting exercise! Is there a goal to spending time doing so?

 

the original point was trying to explain the layers in planetary formation

 

A noble endeavor, but spending time on concepts that are physically impossible in our universe is not a terribly good way to achieve that goal, don't you think?

 

...all those in favor of my posts being more stuctured, say...

 

I don't really know that improving the structure would help the issue that the content itself seems to demonstrate that there's a bit of a lack of effort in doing research into what is already known, and while certainly some enjoy efforts such as counting the number of angels that may dance on the head of a pin, posts that bear no resemblance to reality can be puzzling at the very least, even though they can be quite amusing at times.

 

Not sure that's your intent though.

 

 

If you only do the easy and useless jobs, you'll never have to worry about the important ones which are so difficult. you just won't have the time. for there's always something to do to keep you from what you really should be doing, and if it weren't for that dreadful magic staff, you'd never know how much time you were wasting :phones:

Buffy

[belovelife]

 

Pondering the impact of the easily disprovable and the impossible is certainly an interesting exercise! Is there a goal to spending time doing so?

 

 

 

A noble endeavor, but spending time on concepts that are physically impossible in our universe is not a terribly good way to achieve that goal, don't you think?

 

 

 

I don't really know that improving the structure would help the issue that the content itself seems to demonstrate that there's a bit of a lack of effort in doing research into what is already known, and while certainly some enjoy efforts such as counting the number of angels that may dance on the head of a pin, posts that bear no resemblance to reality can be puzzling at the very least, even though they can be quite amusing at times.

 

Not sure that's your intent though.

 

 

If you only do the easy and useless jobs, you'll never have to worry about the important ones which are so difficult. you just won't have the time. for there's always something to do to keep you from what you really should be doing, and if it weren't for that dreadful magic staff, you'd never know how much time you were wasting :phones:

Buffy

 

have you ever worked glass,

 

if not, its similar to poetry, in a scientific sence

 

 

i gotta go , reply to the rest tomorrow

[belovelife]

i think that the net gain in gravity from matter decay, and space dust, would be an interesting number to introduce

 

but the facts that we don't know about the core, are alot

 

if

it works by my theory

 

then there might still be an inner core of the core that is pure energy, and the impetali process has not started

 

unlikley, since i have reserved this minimally for a star

 

but still possible

[belovelife]

 

does the calculated gravitational effects of the matter that is formed from atomic decay

 

a- less than the original matter

b- equal to the original matter

c- more than the original matter

 

this may also be dependant on the type of matter decaying,

 

logic would say that you would have less

 

considering the loss of enegy in heat

 

and the loss of atomic weight when duterium turn back into hydrogen

 

but if that is the case,

 

where is the earths gravity going, will it reduce to a point until it stops,

 

or the accumulated matter from stardust and other objects entering our gravitational zone

counterbalance the loss in atomic decay

 

therefore giving specific layers as the core spins indepentantly to the spin of the surface

 

 

i wonder if this is dependant of the interaction with time

 

where there is potentially more gravity, dependant on its resonanace

[Buffy]

but the facts that we don't know about the core, are alot

True, but we know enough--like the density figures shown above--to disprove all sorts of stuff.

 

So:

 

but still possible

 

No, it's not.

 

So, back to my question: is there a goal you're seeking here by pondering stuff that can't possibly be true?

 

There are so many interesting questions out there that do not have answers! :cheer:

 

Do you think it's useful to ponder those that have already been definitively answered?

 

 

I only treat illnesses that don't exist: that way, if I can't cure them, there's no harm done – just one of the precautions of the trade, :phones:

Buffy

[belovelife]

well originally i pondered a crystal sphere of stars, then i decided we probably spin around the sun

 

besides that,

 

if

 

you ever worked glass or seen metal pured

 

while

 

thinking of the bubbles in beer,

 

and

 

the bubbles in amber

 

then

 

you would visualize the structure that form the inner core

 

 

 

also, as an active core is probably the reason our core is still molten

 

then the only potential cause for it is atomic decay, in one shape or another

 

atomic decay makes elements smaller than the atom that decays

 

then there would be veins of "color in glass"

 

or a straw in water

 

depending on the visualization

 

therefore, these desities measured are not constant

 

if we use an earthquake to measure things, we can get a decent picture,

 

but to really shapren the focus, we would nee to take these things into consideration

[Moontanman]

well originally i pondered a crystal sphere of stars, then i decided we probably spin around the sun

 

besides that,

 

if

 

you ever worked glass or seen metal pured

 

while

 

thinking of the bubbles in beer,

 

and

 

the bubbles in amber

 

then

 

you would visualize the structure that form the inner core

 

 

 

also, as an active core is probably the reason our core is still molten

 

then the only potential cause for it is atomic decay, in one shape or another

 

atomic decay makes elements smaller than the atom that decays

 

then there would be veins of "color in glass"

 

or a straw in water

 

depending on the visualization

 

therefore, these desities measured are not constant

 

if we use an earthquake to measure things, we can get a decent picture,

 

but to really shapren the focus, we would nee to take these things into consideration

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRGBzvofpeI

[belovelife]

pirates