It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I'd say the Earth's core is hot, not because of tidal forces with the moon (although it contributes some), but a much much bigger and ongoing version of the Oklo natural reactor. Water makes a good moderator to help keep things going. It's why helium and radioactive gases seep out in some places. (And at times more than what slow decay should account for.) Convection currents in the molten materials containing metals keep the magnetic field going. Our planet has a pretty live core compared to other terrestrial types in the system.
Mainstream science still doesn't say the Earth's core is a fission reactor, but I don't consider that idea anywhere near as far out as the hollow Earth or those oddball "intelligent design" theories. Evidence of water being that deep is something that would help support it.
Radioactive decay can by no means provide the heat energy required for convection. ... These concentrations are extremely small, and of the order of 80 ppb. In the Moon, the concentration of radioactive elements is more than three times greater. Following that reasoning radioactive decay causes mantle convection, and the Moon should therefore have a vigorously convecting mantle instead of a non-convecting mantle, as we observe.
Finally, primordial heat can not be the energy source either. ... With the present rate of heat loss, that amount can only last for about 2 billion years. This is however a very conservative estimate, ... If the heat energy requirements for convection are between one or two orders of magnitude greater, this primordial energy can only last from 200 to 20 million years!
Materials with viscosities of the order of 10^20 poises and higher, can only be treated as a solid
Heat, by definition, is the kinetic energy of atomic or molecular translation, and/or rotation, and/or vibration. In gases and liquids heat is the kinetic energy of randomly and more or less free moving atoms and molecules.In solids the electromagnetic forces hold the entire assembly of atoms and molecules to a definite size and shape, and they only vibrate about fixed locations, instead of moving randomly as with a gas or liquid. If, in high pressure states, the movement of atoms and molecules is limited, the heat energy content will be low and heat transport slower. Thus temperature and heating capacity are low and the internal energy is in the form of electronic-chemical energy, i.e., free electron movement and/or compression of electron shells within the atoms of the solid. It is only when the electro-chemically stored energy is transformed into kinetic energy of atoms (via vibration, and/or rotation, and/or translation) that the heat content increases. Only then, will a solid’s internal energy exist as kinetic energy of its atoms and heat and internal energy can be truly considered equivalent. Conditions inside Earth where its internal energy can exist and be released as kinetic energy of its atoms, are only possible at, or very near to its surface, i.e. at lower pressures.
Weird how the wisdom in the Bible is not only accurate, but apparently still ahead of its time.
reply to post by masqua
There is another story around from a month or so ago that researchers found pockets of water deep under the crust of the earth that was fresh water . In the piece that may be from the same source you have they stated that there was more fresh water down there them what we have on the surface .Kind of reminds me of the Genesis flood story of the fountains of the great deep being opened .The diamonds in this story might explain the Kimberlite pipes where diamonds are found .I can think of the one in Africa and the one we have up in the arctic ...interesting story eh
edit ..it would mean that diamonds are not created they way we were told .I think that what we call fossil fuels (oil) is not what they had told us either .edit on 12-3-2014 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)
To me, it makes the theory of the monster flood a little more possible.
Which is very frightening.
Traditionally coal, oil and gas, are considered to be biogenic in their origin. However it is acknowledged that the processes by which fossil fuels evidently formed are not totally understood.
* Trace elements: Nickel and vanadium (Ni, V) found in all oils as well as trace-elements such as Zn, Pb, Cu, Cd, Cr, Co, As, Sb, Te, Hg, Au, Ag cannot be of organic origin and are typical of mantle rocks, like dunite/peridotite and serpentinites.
* Carbonaceous chondrites: Carbonaceous chondrites, thought to be a type of meteorites that never melted or even heated above 50 °C, are mostly small, black, friable, very low density and high porosity rocks. Visually they are almost indistinguishable from kerogen or coal. They contain amino acids and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a class of very stable hydrocarbon compounds with multiple benzene rings, typical of asphalts, fuels, oils, and greases.
* Depth of oil and gas discoveries: Almost all oil giants are found between 1 and 2 km; shallower than the ~3 km of the gas giants. If the force is from above and given the greater mobility of gas, the order should be opposite. Oil should be found at greater depths and gas closer to the surface. The greater depth gas is found is a consequence of higher temperatures at depths where microcracks-resonant cavities and electrons radiating at thermal frequencies coexist.
* Lack of biodegradation: Despite all expectations, oil found in Barents Sea in a depth as shallow as ~1000 m was not biodegraded. Since biodegradation, the process by which organic matter is broken down, aerobically or anaerobically, by micro-organisms is not observed in the Barents Sea, the great gas reserves in the area cannot be attributed to the action of methanogenic bacteria. Therefore, we can with good reason argue that the generating mechanism for oil and gas is common, and biodegradation does not play any major role in their formation processes.
Earth’s inner core is considered as an equilibrium high-tension/high-frequency location, wherein energy−unpaired standing waves transform into paired standing waves−matter, so that the conservation principle is not violated, and form new elements, i.e., Excess Mass. Earth’s outer core, being ‘looser’ space than that of the inner core, in correspondence to the electron cloud of an atom, has the characteristics of a plasma state. The order which elements form depends on their nuclear binding energy. Hydrogen with the lowest nuclear binding energy of ~1.15 MeV per nucleon should be the first element to form, and iron, with its ~8.8 MeV, the last and most stable. Thus, the absence of Fe-rich rocks and oceanic crust older than about 200 m.y. finds its physical explanation. The nuclear binding energy of U238 is ∼7.7 MeV, about the same as that of C12, implying that uranium from the fission sequence to the right of the Fe peak, and carbon, from the fusion sequence to the left of iron, started to form about the same time in the Earth’s evolution from low to high energies/frequencies.
Phage posted on the other thread that was closed on this subject that the amount of water probably wouldn't be enough to flood the earth, something to think about though is what if all the polar ice was melted also. that water if execrated that far into the earth would most likely be very warm/hot and could melt all of the polar ice. also what would happen to the earths crust if the interior of the earth lost that much mass/ structure in such a short period of time. conversely what would happen if trillions of gallons of water were "magically" dropped on the earth all at once, maybe the mantle is comprised of a super absorbent layer that eventually sucked up all that water and then expanded the earth to become a larger size thus expanding Pangea in 40 days rather than a few billion years. man that sounds like a crazy creationist theory lol.
That people "guess" that water was part of formation of the daimond, does not mean there are pockets of water at that depth ...
If the sample is representative of that part of the deep Earth, the amount of water there could be "about the same as the mass of all the world’s oceans combined," wrote Hans Keppler, a geophysicist at the University of Bayreuth in Germany, in an analysis article.
reply to post by chiefsmom
My thoughts exactly... the old biblical notion of opening the 'fountains of the deep' suddenly makes more sense, doesn't it? It also might be another explanation for the disappearance of some land bridges.
ETA: I see I'm not the only one who thought of that right away.edit on 12/3/14 by masqua because: (no reason given)