Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Sardion
Way to keep up with the 21st Century buddy! And you type like the president speaks.
Now now, let's be friendly. The "nucular" mistake is humorous because it is so widely known and criticized, but there was no call to get harsh with
Sardion and G-dub. It's generally bad form to nitpick spelling, and it only serves as a diversion from the thread topic.
ANOK
Thanks for the link, good and simple explanation. I thought it was pretty much accepted though. I know some used to think it was Iron, but there was
never any proof. The nuclear reactor theory at least has several things going for it, not the least of which is everybody's favorite force, gravity.
But then again, some used to think the earth was flat and had no core..so...
Anok's source specified a low oxygen environment. Apparently the density of uranium oxides is low enough that a uranium-rich core would be contingent
on circumstances which could stop Uranium from oxidizing.
(And some on this site seem to think it's hollow. 
Or filled with Nazis! Or filled with Nazis and UFOs! So I guess we just
can't say for sure one way or another who's crazy and who's not. It could be we're all dreaming anyway, and this is a collective punishment for a
collective failure to reach enlightenment.)
[ sarcasm/irony ] or perhaps its a reward for those who have achieved the virtue of simplemindedness, which also serves as not a punishment, but a
painful incentive for those who have not yet attained simplemindedness. Why else would ignorance be bliss? [ /sarcasm/irony ]
A word of caution to everyone about the recent earth changes; there's nothing but data right now, no conclusions worth mentioning. There's a
problem, but no solid indication of the source, or any possible remedies.
The thing that always gets me about India Daily is that they offer really interesting stuff which sounds at least somewhat plausible (in some cases)
but often do not give the hard sources that I'd like to check up on.
By any chance does anybody know precisely what sort of data all this is coming from? I caught the He3 and He4 thing, the theory on the nuclear core,
etc, but what about the decreasing viscousity of the mantle? Does anybody know the names of whatever geologists are leading the pack on this at least
so that we can check out their work?
