Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by bjarneorn
So, if you have a heavy molecule, in a liquid core, it will 'sink' towards the core, displacing any lighter liquid molecules.
Yes, but when this element sits in the core it will be, with increasing mass, put to the test of equal gravitational force in all directions. That
will "hasten" it's elemental decay.
We're not talking about "water pressure" here.
In the case of objects the size of planets, the gravitational attraction on all those billions of tons of material creates enormous pressure, rising
as you approach the core.
Well, let's assume the Universe is a room. If you fill this room with gases, up to the same preassure as is found in the universe ... are you telling
me, that planets will evolve?
Simply put, No.
Plasmas are easy to create at near vacuum pressures, but if you compress a plasma, you get a gas (even at high temperatures).
If you further compress this (which will raise the temperature) you will get a liquid.
If you further compress the liquid the temperature will increase again and you will get a solid.
And theoretically, if you further compress it, it will develope into a superconductive material where all the electrons are free floating.
Not disaggreeing here
So you see, a solid inner core, floating in a liquid outer core, floating in a liquid mantle and capped with a solid crust, actually makes scientific
sense. Some sort of hollow or low density are like a plasma, does not.
I disagree ... you are talking about a dynamo. The electricity, created by a dynamo, is created through friction. When you use a car, the general
thing is to create as little friction as possible so that the energy needed to continue motion is approaching zero. The only energy needed for the
car, is for the acceleration and to counter the friction of air resistance.
We're not talking about a well oiled gear system, at the center of the earth. We're talking about a plastecized mantle, liquid outer core, and solid
inner core. We're talking about system, with the highest possible friction.
So far, what you've come with are the only solid arguements that have been presented here, so far. But for the system to work, you need an energy
source, and the heat is not enough. The heat dissipation process would have stabilized a long time ago. That is why I've answered that many of the
arguements are nonsense, because the mechanics involved are just as much "nonsense" as the plasma core is. Even more so, because a "plasma core"
would actually explain the energy process involved, given that the suns keeping it alive ...
There is evidence that the average abundance of elements in the Earth is the same as we have observed in chondrite meteorites (which are primarily
iron and nickel). These meteorites were formed by the same processes as the Earth, in approximately the same section of space (within the Solar
Yes, but that there "exists" iron and nickel in these meteorites, does not serve as proof that the core of the earth is of this compound.
The reason we don't find the same abundance of Iron and Nickel at the crust of the Earth is that, in their molten state, being heavy liquids, they
would have sunk towards the core early in the life of the planet and the lighter elements would have risen towards the surface. This process is
referred to as "The Iron Catastrophe" (mentioned in other posts) where, at the point where the planet became hot enough to melt its constituents
sufficiently to begin the movement of the heavier elements to the core, that the additional friction of billions of tons of moving heavy elements
produced even more heat, liquifying more of the Earth and accelerating the process violently.
Alternate to the "Iron Catastrophe" theory is the the "Rain Out" theory that states that the heat that melted the planets materials (@ 1,500 degrees
C), began before the mass had fully accreted. This then allowed the heavier molten iron and nickel (NiFe), which was in emulsion (immiscible), with
liquid silicates, to rain down towards the core faster than the lighter silicates.
These aren't theories, they are hypothesis.
When a volcanic eruption occurs, Fe is among the elements that erupts Amongst other elements, but the most abundant element of all in lava ... is
oxygen. Oxygen is binding all elements, at the lava and volcanic eruption levels. It proves that gases, are the working factor of eruptions ...
... and finally, we can see seismically, that there are boundaries between different regions inside the Earth and that these regions fit well with the
the stratification expected in planetary formation from the abundances expected from analysis of the chondrite meteorites.
Seizmic information is not proof ... it can easily be interpreted differently.
So, please tell me where the current theories (Plate Tectonics & solid Nickel/Iron core) breaks down?
It breaks up on multiple levels.
The very first level, is the formation of stars and planets. The arguement used, as I pointed in another post, is circular.
The second, is the asteroid belt. It is not proof, that iron-nickel is the core of the earth. As the mass of the asteroid belt, is currently the
mass of the moon (mercury) and hasn't yet made a planet. Initially the mass in this field, was much more, more than enough to create a planet.
Wether it is remnants of a planet, or a planet that never formed is irrelevant. It's iron-nickel compound never made a planet. Or if it was one,
that planet never made it to the level of being a real planet.
Most importantly, you have to have a gravitational pull towards the center of mass to form a planet. Long before iron or nickel ever existed.
The sun itself, and all stars have a magnetic field. These magnetic fields are "erratic" at the surface, but so is the magnetic field of the earth.
It is very common, that a compass can go avry at many places on the surface of the earth.
All planets and moons, have a magnetic field ... and the only part in this solar system, that apparently hasn't become a planet, is the part of the
solar system, that has abundance of iron-nickel combination.
If iron-nickel was such a common part in the formation of the Universe, yet some planets like Venus and Mars, don't have a working magnetic field.
While planets like Mercury do, which is a planet that wouldn't have an abundance of iron-nickel, being so closed to the sun. At the same time, the
gas planets have a strong magnetic field.
Irridium is also in abundance in meteorites. It's a much heavier metal than iron ... so if the compounds that made up the earths core, seeped in
while it was a melted hot place, then irridium would had gone to the core.
However I maintain the view, that there can never be that very center of mass ... because materials crystalize at the molecular level. Because this
"center" point, can't exist. There has to be an "equal" contraction at all joints, of any formation ... unless it collapses upon itself. And if you
increase the mass, of an object. The elements either build a stronger formation to stop the collapse (like daimond) or they collapse, which would
lead to a completely different scenario.
edit on 17/9/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)
edit on 17/9/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason
edit on 17/9/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)