Well thank you Ultra_Pheonix, you have redeemed me most well. *does a jigg*, now where's e-nonymous to give his usual ignorant and unsupported opinion?

The computer simulations, conducted at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tenn., provide the strongest evidence yet that a core georeactor has been at work for some 4.5 billion years, the widely accepted age of Earth -- and that an end to its lifetime might be approaching, Herndon contends.

Ahh, yes ... If the computer simulation say's it's there then it MUST be there, right? Then that would mean the computer simulation of a mar's sized object slamming into Earth really did create the moon, with no other evidence to really support that 'simulation' either ...

"The most important implication of the findings would be to explain the source of the magnetic field, one of the great unresolved problems of our time,"

Actually, there was another theory that did quite well in my opinion ... Don't remember much about it, but I'll look it up and post a link soon.

Personally, I'd like to know exactley what is protecting us from the radiation comming from our mini-sun. Really neat-o how this theory come's out along with the movie "The Core" ...

5POF,

I really don't understand your childish name calling... You feel almighty and powerfull when you resort to 'child' tactic's like that?

Or do we have another incarnation of the ill tempered FM on our hand's ... I'm really starting to wonder ... If you felt my opinion was so wrong in that other thread, then why haven't you spoken up in it? Seem's odd ... Well, that and how you joined after I last heard from FM's last incarnation ... Only to name call me like FM, and his alter-ego(s) ....

Actually, Hammerite posted a thread on this a few weeks back.

I read the theory, and posted the following:

Hmmm... It is an interesting article I will say. It seems to be a modified version of a theory floated around the turn of the century though. At the time, heat measurements were being used in crustal cooling calculations to determine the true age of the planet, and they were coming up with incredibly young ages, as young as 2000-3000 years. These discrepancies were explained as a layer of radiactive isotopes existing at the bottom of the crust/top of the upper mantel (supported by the statement in the article that the radioactives readily bond with silicates, which are the main constituent of the crust/mantel) were decaying, releasing heat at a much higher rate than released by the core.

The other problem I see with this is that we currently have no evidence or proven mechanism for the direct conversion of charged particles/radiation into a magnetic field. The current theory holds that the magnetic field is created by slow movement of the inner mantle around the core, basically as a giant dynamo or generator, forming electrical induction through the physical movement.

It is interesting though, and I would be interested if he comes up with more evidence.

Posted by DragonRider


I have to say that there isnt a hell of a lot of evidence to support this other than a couple of (granted interesting) computer simulations. I certainly am not going to loose a great deal of sleep over whether our core is about to run out of steam or melt down in the immediate future.

The current theory holds that the magnetic field is created by slow movement of the inner mantle around the core, basically as a giant dynamo or generator, forming electrical induction through the physical movement.

Yea, that was the theory I was thinking of ... I'll have to find a link on it ...

e-nonymous, I've the feeling that you're skeptic because you don't like that theory.

5POF, glad to know that you're happy.

It's not that I don't like the theory. It's just that it make's no sense. How can an itty-bitty mini-sun last just as long as our big ol' sun in the sky? Despite the fuel difference's, I just don't see it possible, nor can we accept it as fact without any substantial evidence beyond a computer simulation.